Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF AIR COMMODORE HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE O KENT

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:
"I thank you sincerely for the loyal and affectionate words in which you express your sympathy with me and my family in the loss on active service of my dear brother the Duke of Kent. In the midst of this sudden grief, it is a source of the greatest comfort to me to realise how fully you share our sorrow."

SIR HUGH O'NEILL, having been appointed, together with Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, to attend upon Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent with a Message of Condolence from this House, appeared at the Bar, and reported that Her Royal Highness had been attended with the Message and that Her Royal Highness was pleased to give the following Answer:
"I thank you most sincerely for your Message of sympathy with me in my great sorrow on the death on active service of my beloved husband the Duke of Kent. It is a source of great pride and comfort to me to know that he died, as he himself would have wished, for his King and his country."

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (ARMED RAIDS FROM EIRE)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the official police report, according to which a lorry preceded by a motor-car, each full of armed men, coming from Eire, entered Northern Ireland at Culloville, County Armagh, on

2nd September, and opened fire from tommy-guns and automatics on a sergeant and constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, wounding the sergeant and seizing the constable; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps have been taken by the military authorities for the protection of Northern Ireland against any further armed incursion from Eire?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have seen the report referred to. The maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland, on the border as elsewhere, is first of all a matter for the civil authorities. It is, however, a military responsibility to go to the aid of the civil power if necessary, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that the military authorities have taken such steps as are proper to provide such assistance if called upon to do so.

Professor Savory: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House how these tommy-guns and automatics, reported to be of British manufacture, were found in the hands of these invaders from Eire?

Mr. Henderson: I have no information on that matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the hon. Member's party opposed the nationalisation of the arms industry and that that is why it is?

Professor Savory: asked the Secre-of State for Dominion Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 2nd September, at 2.15 p.m., a lorry preceded by a motor-car, each full of armed men, entered Northern Ireland from Eire at Culloville, County Armagh and fired, with tommy-guns and automatics, on a sergeant and constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, wounding the sergeant; whether he has made a protest to Mr. de Valera against the use of Eire territory as a base for an armed raid on Northern Ireland; and whether he has demanded that compensation be paid to the wounded sergeant?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have read reports of the incident to which the hon. Member refers. We have not made representations in the matter to the Eire Government who clearly have their own difficulties.

Professor Savory: How many more of these raids have to take place from Eire into Northern Ireland before any protest is made to the Government of Eire, who are responsible, and presumably are masters, in their own house?

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at 4 a.m. on Friday, 4th September, the police barracks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at Belleek, County Fermanagh, on the border of Eire, was attacked by rifle fire and bombs, and that at 11.15 p.m. on Saturday, 5th September, a police patrol of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was ambushed at Clady, County. Tyrone, 300 yards from the border of Eire; that two constables were mortally wounded and another constable seriously injured; and what steps he proposes to take for the defence of the frontier of Northern Ireland against these attacks?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland near the Border, as elsewhere, is a matter primarily for the civil authority, and I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland are satisfied that the situation is well in hand.

Professor Savory: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to express, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, sympathy with the widows and children of these constables, noble Ulstermen, foully done to death by cowardly assassins, who fled over the Border as soon as they had done their dastardly deed?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Education (Published Articles)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War whether two recently published articles on Army education, signed, respectively, by General Maude and Mr. N. W. E. Williams, now serving at the War Office, defending their official activities, were issued by the Public Relations Department of the War Office; and whether the contents of the articles and the method of publication have his approval?

Mr. A. Henderson: Brigadier Maude's article, which is purely factual and in no way a defence of his official activities, was

published with the approval of the War Office. Mr. Williams' article was a personal expression of opinion and was published by him on his own responsibility.

Mr. Stewart: Is it not most unusual for a member of the Civil Service to publish articles defending his own activities? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider this matter, which is rather serious?

Mr. Henderson: The attention of Mr. Williams has been drawn to the Regulations, which prohibit the publication of articles without authority.

Home Guard

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to answer the letter from the horn Member for South-east Leeds regarding the large proportion of the Home Guard in Leeds who are still without greatcoats; and whether these are to be supplied before winter?

Mr. A. Henderson: I sent my hon. and gallant Friend an answer to his letter of 4th September yesterday. For supply and other reasons, which this explains, I regret that it is not at present possible to withdraw from use the capes which are an alternative issue to greatcoats, but instructions have been given that the capes should, so far as possible, be assigned to members who do not carry out regular outside duties and the greatcoats to those who do.

Major Milner: Is it not a fact that repeated promises have been made for nearly a year that these units will be supplied with greatcoats? How is it that that has not been done? Should not the War Office, who invented this absurd cape, which prevents the use of arms, supply greatcoats without question to replace them?

Mr. Henderson: The matter has been made more difficult by reason of the supply problem, and also the raising of the ceiling of the Home Guard; but it is our intention to remedy the position as soon as we can.

Major Milner: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Leeds is the centre of the clothing industry and that there are thousands of greatcoats which could be supplied to-morrow if the


War Office would give instructions, which they have promised for almost a year now to give? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman see that the instructions are given before the winter comes upon us?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is not quite so simple as that. There is not this tremendous reserve supply of greatcoats, but we are hoping to obtain greater supplies as time goes on, as I have indicated in my reply.

Mr. Denman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman get on with the matter before the winter?

Major Milner: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question at the first opportunity upon the Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour how many civilians have been directed into the Home Guard up to 31st August; how many have been accepted by the Home Guard; and how many were found to be already members of the Home Guard?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): It would not be in the public interest to make known the number of civilians directed to enrol in the Home Guard. All but a negligible number of the men so directed have been enrolled. So far as I am aware, no directions have been given to any man who is already a member of the Home Guard.

Sir T. Moore: While I am willing to give my hon. Friend any number of cases, such as he has no knowledge of at the moment, might I ask whether he is satisfied that the present administration of his Department in this matter is satisfactory and does he not think it requires great tightening up?

Mr. McCorquodale: While not expressing satisfaction on any matter, I think that the efforts of my Department are meeting with the approval of the War Office in this matter. I think, with regard to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary, that he is mistaken. Forms of inquiry were sent out to persons who were members of the Home Guard, and in some cases these were mistaken for directions. In no such cases have directions been sent out.

Mr. Maxton: Could the Minister give us some idea of how by giving these figures he could possibly injure the public interest?

Mr. McCorquodale: So far as I am aware, no figures of military formations have been given since the war started.

Mr. Maxton: That is not what I asked.

Requisitioned Property (Damage)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is satisfied with the steps that are being taken by the military authorities to prevent the wanton destruction of houses and grounds occupied by troops?

Mr. A. Henderson: To check the efficacy of the steps taken to deal with this matter periodic inspections of requisitioned buildings have been made over a period of more than a year. Within this time there has been a very marked diminution in the number of unsatisfactory occupations. A further instruction calling attention to the gravity of offences of this nature will however be issued very shortly.

Mr. Dugdale: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to make the disciplinary Regulations more stringent to prevent this sort of thing?

Mr. Molson: Is it not possible to have an inspection before each unit leaves, in order that responsibility may be brought home to those who are to blame?

Mr. Henderson: I will consider that suggestion.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Does not the continuance of cases of wanton destruction show a serious absence of discipline, and is it not time that some disciplinary action was taken against the officers responsible?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the number of reported cases shows a very considerable diminution, as the result of steps taken by the War Office.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT HOSTELS (CHARGES)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the 27s. 6d. per week, referred to in Command Paper 6385 as the charge for lodging and partial board in a typical Government hostel, represents profit; and what items are included in estimating cost?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. Friend on 8th September, the charge in a Government hostel is based, not on costs in the hostel, but on the payments which munition workers customarily make for board and lodging in munitions areas. The conception of profit, therefore, does not arise.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinguished this figure from billeting payments, on the ground that it is a commercial figure, is it fair to include an element of profit in estimating the value of the board and lodging provided for the Services? Would it not be much better to take the billeting payment as the appropriate figure?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Enforcement Methods

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many enforcement officers of his Department have been found guilty of disobeying their instructions to avoid provocation; and what action has been taken against them?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): None, Sir, apart from one borderline case, on which my right hon. Friend decided, after a full investigation, that no disciplinary action was called for.

Mr. Lipson: Have inquiries been made by the Department into the very serious allegations against enforcement officers of this Department made in an article which appeared in the "Spectator," in regard to an incident in Devonshire?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir; but careful search through all cases brought by the Department in and around Devonshire has revealed no evidence confirming the alleged incident. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson),

who wrote the article, has explained to me that he accepts no responsibility for the authenticity of the report of this incident. He quoted it in his article as it had been repeated to him only as an example of an incredible story which he did not and does not believe.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the wide publicity given to the allegation, will the Minister take steps, in fairness to the officers of his Department, to see that the widest publicity is given to his reply, and will he ask the editor of the "Spectator" to publish in the next issue of the paper the statement which he has just made?

Captain Waterhouse: I hope the Answer to the Question will give the necessary publicity. I will consider the letter to the "Spectator."

Major Lyons: Is there no truth in a similar allegation made in connection with the City of Leicester?

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester was unwilling to give me details of the location of that particular incident. We are therefore making exhaustive inquiries to try to trace it to the ground. As soon as that is done, I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Compulsorily Closed Factories

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade what form it is proposed that the assistance will take which businesses, now compulsorily closed, will be entitled to in order to start again after the war?

Captain Waterhouse: The precise forms of assistance must clearly depend on the circumstances prevailing at the end of the war, but the Government have no intention of departing from their statement of policy laid down in Command Paper 6258 on the Concentration of Production.

Mr. Hannah: May the industries compulsorily closed rely on being allowed to open again under satisfactory circumstances after the war?

Captain Waterhouse: The words in the White Paper are:
The closed factories should be kept ready to start again as soon as possible after the war. The Departments concerned will then take all measures open to them to assist their speedy re-opening.

Mr. Hannah: Thank you.

Domestic Articles (Prices)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the prices of three-pint kettles, sheets, hair brooms, teacloths and garden forks in 1939 and 1942; whether he is satisfied that the increase in such prices during the past three years is justified; and whether he proposes to take any steps to control the prices of these commodities?

Captain Waterhouse: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks in the first part of his Question is not available. Maximum prices have been fixed for a range of utility household textiles and maximum prices and margins of profit for other household textiles. My right hon. Friend proposes to make similar provisons for some of the other articles enumerated in the near future.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us an assurance that the increase in prices will not be unreasonable, because many people think the present increase is very unreasonable?

Captain Waterhouse: I hope my hon. Friend can take it that nothing my right hon. Friend does will be unreasonable.

Non-Utility Cloth

Mr. Colman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from leading tailoring organisations in the country urging that, in view of the world-wide reputation of British clothing, some facilities for the maintenance of individual bespoke tailoring should be afforded; and whether he can give any reassurances on the point?

Captain Waterhouse: Some of the leading tailoring organisations have recently made representations to my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend said in this House on 23rd July, there is no prospect of the production of cloth and clothing being confined to utility specifications. I can give the assurance that for the present a considerable quantity of non-utility cloth will continue to be made, subject always to the limits imposed by raw material supply and manufacturing capacity.

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend what policy the Board of Trade has in this matter, which concerns the preservation of the craftsmanship of this country, and what reply has been made to the representations on

this important subject, in which the livelihood of vast numbers of people is involved?

Captain Waterhouse: The policy of the Board of Trade is to keep alive all traders whom it is possible to keep alive in view of the exigencies of the war.

Check Trading

Mr. Denman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many thousands of wage-earners are disturbed by the threatened cessation of check trading, because they will be unable to obtain credit so cheaply by other means; and what advantage he expects will be achieved if he turns check traders into moneylenders for the duration of the war, or alternatively, forces wage-earners into the hands of less desirable money-lenders?

Captain Waterhouse: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to similar Questions on this subject on Tuesday last. Even if the prohibition of poundage were to lead to the cessation of check trading, I cannot agree that the money lender would be the only alternative for wage-earners who could not afford to pay cash.

Mr. Denman: Is it wise at this time to add to the shopping worries of the harassed housewife?

Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. Friend has no such intention. Ceiling prices and margins of profits have been fixed, and were we to make an exception to these prices, it would jeopardise, or be likely to jeopardise, the whole structure of price control, and therefore run contrary to the endeavour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to avoid inflation.

Mr. Denman: Is not this system a quite separate service, with no relation to the margins of profits?

Captain. Waterhouse: No, I do not think it can be said to have no relation to the; margins when in fact a check is sold for 21S. 6d. to buy goods the marginal or ceiling price of which is £1.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman initiate proceedings against any hon. Member who pays for a suit of clothes by means of a bank overdraft?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Sports Goods

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the representations made by the Welsh sports retail traders to reeonsider his proposal to make Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes responsible for the distribution of sports goods to the Services, as this is a specialised and technical trade which is in a position to ensure priority of supply of the limited goods available to the Services and other approved sports organisations and will still be required to attend to repairs and be responsible for the distribution of certain other sports equipment?

Captain Waterhouse: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to certain representations that he has received from a Welsh retailer of sports goods. On the reasons for the arrangements that have been made I would refer Mm to the reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) on 9th September, 1942.

Colonel Evans: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say, in view of the statement in his reply to a supplementary question that it is not the policy of the Board of Trade to interfere with the retail industry unless it is vitally necessary, how many complaints have been received by the Board of Trade or by the War Office from military formations that they are unable or have been unable in the past to secure sports goods through the usual channels of the retail trade?

Captain Waterhouse: We have had many complaints that individuals have not been able to obtain sports goods, but sports goods are necessarily in very short supply during the war.

Colonel Evans: Admitting that fact of short supply, is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that sufficient evidence has been produced to show why the limited supply should not be distributed to the Services through the usual channels of the retail trade?

Captain Waterhouse: This decision was taken in consultation with the War Office, our object being to obtain the fairest possible distribution of the very limited

supplies available. That it has created some hardship we realise, but on balance we believe it is the right line.

Sir T. Moore: What is the justification for granting a further monopoly to an already much-favoured institution?

Travel Warrants

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can now announce the date upon which the issue will begin of travel warrants for the Armed Forces in a form valid as a ticket?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. The railways have arranged to start this important new scheme on 1st October, but its operation in any particular area will depend upon the delivery of supplies of the new warrants. Orders for these warrants have been given but supplies may not be available in all areas by that date.

Sir J. Mellor: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, can I assume that the new form will be fully equivalent to a railway ticket and that no check will be required at the booking office?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Fruit and Vegetables (Drying)

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps have been taken, or are proposed, this autumn, for the dehydration or processing of surplus fruit and vegetables grown in this country, for supply to the Services and the civilian population, in the early spring of 1943?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): As the answer is long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Lyons: Can my hon. Friend say whether, on this occasion, his Department will act in time, instead of facing the community with the everlasting "too late"?

Mr. Mabane: As always, in time.

Following is the statement:

My Noble Friend gave instructions some time ago for the maximum provision to be made at the earliest date possible for the drying of vegetables grown in this country. The Ministry is at present engaged in setting up 15 plants, and it is intended to increase this very considerably. The total annual capacity of these 15 plants is estimated at about 7,500 tons of mixed dried vegetables, and for this approximately 140,000 tons of fresh vegetables will be required. The plants are of a simple tunnel type and are being installed in existing factories which have the necessary facilities. Production will be controlled by the Ministry in order to secure and maintain the required standard of quality. The output of the plants referred to will be taken over by the Ministry for distribution, and it is expected that distribution in the coming spring will be limited to the Forces and certain emergency services.

It is intended to dry mainly potatoes, carrots and cabbages, but investigations to determine the suitability of other vegetables are proceeding. The main purpose of the drying of vegetables is not the removal of surpluses, but it is primarily regarded as a method of conservation and as a means of economising in transport, storage space and packing materials, especially tinplate. The operation of the plants will, however, provide some outlet for surplus supplies.

In addition to the drying of vegetables for direct human consumption, surplus potatoes are dried for use as animal feeding stuffs and could also be used for the production of flour suitable for inclusion in manufactured foods or as a dilutant in bread. It is estimated that approximately 700,000 tons of raw potatoes could be processed annually in this way on existing plants in Great Britain and on the plants in course of erection in Northern Ireland.

In dealing with the soft fruit crops this year the Ministry has again diverted priority supplies for jam-making, and at the date of the latest return more than 54,000 tons of fruit has been taken up for conversion into jam or for canning. Much of the fruit diverted in this way was not strictly surplus to the needs of the fresh fruit market. It was diverted owing to the urgent necessity of ensuring the continued supply of preserves. In the

case of plums, however, the crop was greater than could have been taken up entirely as fresh fruit, and the Ministry's pulping programme has been the means of ensuring that so far the plum crop has been taken up as it has been picked.

As already announced, home-grown plums will provide approximately one-fifth of the total output of jam for next season. At the present time encouragement is being given to the picking of as much as possible of the blackberry crop for conversion into jam.

Hotel and Restaurant Meals (Charges).

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, what control is exercised over those restaurants and the like who have no permission to charge any premium where the former and lower price for meals has been increased to 5s. since the advent of the order limiting the amount of food to be supplied.

Mr. Mabane: Restaurants commit an offence against the Meals in Establishments Order if they make, or demand, any unreasonable charge in connection with the supplying of any meal, and certain alleged offences of this kind are under consideration by the Department at the present time. Persons who consider that an establishment has raised its prices unnecessarily can cease to patronise it, but there would not appear to be any justification for embarking upon further measures of control in this direction.

Major Lyons: Has my hon. Friend made any attempt at all to check the restaurants which charged the lower price and are now charging the higher price and blaming the Ministry of Food for giving them an opportunity to start the racket?

Mr. Mabane: I have examined personally all the complaints we have received, and I have not found one specific complaint of the character the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. I asked him if he would supply me with any information he might have, and he has not yet done so.

Major Lyons: On a point of Order. May I make a personal explanation? This request only reached me in the House on Wednesday, and I spoke to the hon. Gentleman's Secretary about it on the telephone yesterday.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether in view of the failure of the schemes to restrict the cost of limited meals at restaurants and the like, by the allowance of other permitted charges, he will arrange that no order be made which effects the imposition of a premium charge upon the sale of foodstuffs without prior discussion in Parliament, so that present anomalies may not be perpetuated?

Mr. Mabane: My noble Friend cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, and he sees no reason to propose any variation in the procedure approved by Parliament for the making of Statutory Rules and Orders under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.

Major Lyons: As this ill-considered scheme proved a failure, and the amendments to it seem fated to do likewise by their very nature, will the hon. Member consider some steps to alter this decision, whereby we are presented with an Order without being able to discuss it?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir.

Plums.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, why the margins for sale and transit of apples are much greater than those for plums; and, in view of the fact that plums are the more perishable fruit, will he take immediate steps to remedy this situation?

Mr. Mabane: The lower cash margins of plums are calculated to reflect the abundance of the heavy crop and the increased turnover resulting for the distributor. With regard to transport allowances, the maximum for apples is higher than that for plums because the transport of apples requires the use of heavier containers and the allowances are calculated with reference to the net weight of fruit. I have no reason to think that any further revision of these sale margins and transport rates is called for.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these margin regulations have caused the wastage of tons and tons of plums, and in future will he please consult experts before making such ridiculous Orders?

Mr. Mabane: I can say that the distribution of the plum crop has gone, and is

going, extraordinarily well. Experts have been watching the position both in Evesham and in Kent, and I can say that with a record crop of this character the number of plums not reaching the market is far smaller than would have been the case in normal times.

Potato Drying Plants, Northern Ireland

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many dehydration plants of those recently constructed are ready for operation in Northern Ireland; how many are under construction; how long have they been under construction; what is the cost of each plant; and how does that cost compare with similar plants erected by private companies in England?

Mr. Mabane: Nine factories for the drying of potatoes are under construction in Northern Ireland; of these it is anticipated that one will be operating by the end of September, 1942, and three by the end of October, 1942, the remainder being in varying stages of construction. The dates of commencement of work on these factories ranged from February to April, 1942. The final costs of the plants are subject to adjustments under the contracts and cannot therefore be given at present. Where similar plants are being provided to those in England, costs are relatively comparable, subject to increases attributable to war time circumstances.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the matter? Who is responsible for this extravagance and waste? Is it not a matter which could properly be brought before the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

Sweets (Service Personnel)

Squadron-Leader Errington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis try of Food whether, in the interests of the small sweet retailer, he is prepared to consult the Service Ministries with a view to the adoption of the coupon system for Service personnel so that they may obtain sweets from civilian sources?

Mr. Mabane: The arrangements for the rationed distribution of chocolates and sugar confectionery were made only after full consideration of all the interests involved, including those of the small retailer to which my hon. and gallant


Friend refers and after consultation with the Service Departments. My Noble Friend sees no reason for reconsidering this arrangement at the present time.

Squadron-Leader Errington: Does my hon. Friend not realise that on the one hand sweet retailers have a large quantity of varied confectionery, and on the other hand soldiers are able to get only a very limited choice? Does he not think this is a ridiculous position?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the ration was recently increased. Further, the block allocation to the Service Departments is, I am sure, quite satisfactory in amount.

Squadron-Leader Errington: It is very unvaried.

British Restaurants

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that British Restaurants are, in a number of cases, being used by the general public as a means of cheap convenience, thus crowding out legitimate war workers; and whether he will consider the issue of passes to war workers in order that they should receive priority over others?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware that workers with a limited lunch period have experienced difficulty in obtaining meals at British restaurants. In such cases the local authority responsible for the operation of the restaurant can make arrangements for priority for workers. Such arrangements have been made by some authorities. I recognise the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend and am arranging for the issue of a general instruction recommending priority for workers.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware, that the complaint is not an isolated one but general in many munition factory areas, and in view of this will he consider adopting the suggestion indicated in those cases in which it can be established to the satisfaction of the Minister that the complaint is a very real and legitimate one?

Mr. Mabane: That is precisely the point of my answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we given to understand that because there is a demand, apparently, on the part of the public to

utilise these cheap and useful British Restaurants, there is to be provided priority for certain people? If there is a demand, why not provide extra British Restaurants?

Mr. Mabane: British Restaurants are being opened at the rate of two a day at present. The responsibility for initiating projects rests with local authorities. My Department is always anxious to approve their projects when the need is evident. It is important that war workers should be given some priority, and in most cases the public are very anxious to conform with suggestions that places should be left for the war workers.

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate that war workers must have priority treatment, but is it not obvious that these restaurants are catering for a legitimate demand, and that the meals provided at them compare very favourably with higher-priced meals at other restaurants?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL DELIVERIES

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, in how many of the 72 towns in Scotland and 761 towns in England and Wales, respectively, having populations of 5,000 or over retail delivery rationalisation schemes, drawn up in consultation with and/or approved by the Ministry, are now in operation; in how many of these cases in Scotland and in England and Wales, respectively, delivery of any controlled article, otherwise than at the seller's premises, except in the circumstances defined in Clause 4 of the St. Andrew's Order, is prohibited; and in how many cases the schemes permit of weekly deliveries to the homes of the people of mixed parcels of seven pounds and over, containing different kinds of controlled articles?

Mr. Noel-Baker: More than 2,000 rationalisation schemes are now in force in England, Scotland and Wales. I cannot say without laborious inquiry how many of these schemes are in towns of 5,000 inhabitants or more, nor how many embody the special provisions referred to by my hon. Friend. Many of them, however, set up a defined zone, within which no deliveries may be made, except when hardship is proved. In some cases, an exception is also made for parcels exceeding a specified weight, usually 14 lb.

Mr. Stewart: Surely my hon. Friend can tell us in how many large towns these schemes are operating in Scotland and in England and Wales? I could find out myself with a great deal of trouble, but I want him to help me?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid it would take my officials a great deal of trouble, because the numbers of schemes are not related to the population of the town. In the largest cities and towns there are more than one scheme, and that makes it a complicated matter, which would require detailed inquiry in each area.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figure for the 72 towns in Scotland of 5,000 and over? It is doubtful whether in 10 per cent. of these towns such a scheme is enforced.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member had given me notice of that figure, I would have looked into it. I will now look into it and let him have an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD DIRECTION SIGNS

Mr. Hannah: asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he realises the great inconvenience to lorry-drivers and others from the removal of all road direction signs; and will he permit at least some of these to be restored temporarily while a hostile invasion is not imminent?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I do realise that inconvenience is caused by the removal of road direction signs. But a decision to replace the signs must depend upon military considerations; and in any case, there is at present a shortage of the labour and materials required. I will, however, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Hannah: Is anything known as to how much extra petrol is used by lorries as a result of the removal of these signs?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We should like to make a change, but we must be subject to the decision of the military authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL STOCK, SOLIHULL

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

War Transport whether he will state the number of railway wagons unloaded at the Solihull reserve coal dump by the contractor employed by the Minister of Fuel and Power; and the number of such wagons reported as damaged in the course of unloading?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Mellor: As in fact the number damaged is between 15 and 20 per cent. of the number unloaded, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that this wasteful activity should stop?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would not like to accept my hon. Friend's figure without inquiry, but of course if the number were anything like that, I would make the strongest representations to those concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (POLITICAL SITUATION)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the efforts of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Rajagopalachariar to bring about an under standing between the major Indian political parties; and whether he will make it clear that His Majesty's Government would welcome the continuance of these and similar efforts for Indian national unity?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I gather from Press reports that the efforts of these distinguished statesmen to bring about an understanding between the major Indian parties have not so far been attended with any conspicuous success. His Majesty's Government, if there is any doubt about the matter, are glad to make it clear that they will welcome the progress of any efforts to establish Indian national unity on a firm and lasting basis.

Mr. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great encouragement to those who are working for unity in India?

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will publish the documents purporting to be instructions for the carrying out of a civil


disobedience campaign, and what proof he has that such instructions were issued on behalf of the Indian National Congress or any of its branches?

Mr. Amery: The Government of India will no doubt consider what information it may be desirable to publish, and I will consult them on the matter. The Press have already published, on 29th August, a summary of the instructions for the conduct of civil disobedience which were issued by Provincial Congress Committees in Madras shortly before the All-India Congress Committee passed its resolution on 8th August. Much that happened in other Provinces conformed to the pattern laid down in Madras. As indicated in the Congress resolution of 8th August, discretion seems to have been left to districts and individuals as to the manner of carrying out Gandhi's call for the complete paralysis of the Administration. The Government of India, however, have no doubt that the Congress leaders must bear the main responsibility for the disorders even though they may not have directly instigated every act of violence that has occurred.

Dr. Guest: Is it not desirable in these very grave circumstances that the actual orders published, if they are available, should be made available to this House—the actual terms of any instructions given by the Congress?

Mr. Amery: It is for the Government of India to decide how much of the information which has reached them is suitable for publication.

Dr. Guest: May I press this point? Is it not for this House to decide what information it requires to have in order to judge the situation in India correctly?

Mr. Amery: There is a great deal of the information which neither the Government here nor the Government of India can afford to publish.

Mr. Shinwell: If substantial and grave charges are made against Congress, ought they not to be well founded and well authenticated; otherwise, how are we to decide, unless we have the information before us?

Mr. Amery: I think the answer I have given covers the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Whisky Stocks (Dispersal)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the public anxiety in Scotland on account of the storage of large quantities of whisky in populous centres and the consequent danger to life and property in the event of air-raids; what steps have been taken to disperse these stocks; and what further action is in contemplation?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): Yes, Sir. The presence of stocks of inflammable material, not only whisky, in areas specially liable to aerial attack has always been a cause of grave concern to the authorities responsible, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that what steps are reasonably possible to deal with the position are being taken. The Regional Commissioner for Scotland, who has been charged with the duty of ensuring the dispersal of whisky and other inflammable materials to the greatest possible practicable extent from the more vulnerable areas, has invited leading Scottish specialists in fire insurance risks to give an independent report upon the whisky position with a view to providing reassurances to the public.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister arrange when making any such dispersal that the stocks will never be found again?

Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that a ship called the "Politician" was wrecked recently off the Island of Eriskay with 20,000 cases of proof whisky, destined for America? Can he say what has happened to them?

Mr. Chapman: Not without notice.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this dispersal is wide enough?

Arrested Miners

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that three miners, each of whom was fined £5, with a month to pay, during April, were taken from bed and arrested, about 5 a.m. on Friday, 28th August; that this action on the part of the police authorities was the cause of a stoppage of work in three collieries; and will he take steps to dismiss the official who was responsible for ordering the arrest of these miners at such an hour in the morning?

Mr. Chapman: The three men in question were fined £5, with the alternative of 30 days' imprisonment, for a contravention of the conditions of the Employment and National Arbitration Order, 1940. They had been given repeated opportunities over a period of more than four months to pay their fines, in instalments if they wished, and as they had failed to do so the alternative sentence of imprisonment had to be enforced. The arrests were effected at the hour at which I understand the men would normally have risen to go to work; and the men were given as much time as they wished to dress and breakfast. The fines were paid the same day, and the men were at once released.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that these men were three out of 20 who were fined? The police knew their daily habits of going to and coming from work. Can the Minister justify this continual practice of the police, of going in the early hours of the morning and taking ordinary workers out of bed to prison? As this is causing the bitterest possible feeling, will action be taken to stop it? If I am not to have an answer, I must give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. It is a very serious question. I had a question before about a girl—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Personnel (Release)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many whole-time or part-time members of the Civil Defence services have been released up to 31st August; and how many have joined the Home Guard?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): It is not desirable to publish the numbers of releases from whole-time Civil Defence service. No figures are available to show how many of the men released have since enrolled in the Home Guard. I hesitate to put local authorities to the trouble of compiling returns to show in how "many cases they have agreed to serving part-time personnel being also enrolled in the Home Guard. Owing to depletion of whole-time strength, increasing reliance has to be

placed upon part-time service. Release from whole-time service in Civil Defence is therefore usually conditional upon the individual's giving part-time service. In many areas, however, recruits for the Home Guard are acceptable only if they sever their connection with Civil Defence.

Sir T. Moore: While I realise the difficulty of giving these figures, are my hon. Friend and her Department satisfied that this process is proceeding satisfactorily?

Miss Wilkinson: It is under constant revision, and, as far as anything in these circumstances can be satisfactory, we are reasonably well satisfied.

Detainees

Mr. Harvey: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to provide suitable footwear and other clothes for those British subjects detained under Regulation 18B in the Isle of Man who have volunteered for farm work on the island; and whether at the conclusion of the harvest farmers who are willing to employ two such workers, but unwilling to take a larger number, will tie allowed to do so?

Mr. Peake: Instructions were given some time ago that suitable protective clothing and footwear should be issued to persons engaged on work schemes, and I am not aware that there has been any deviation from this instruction. The question whether more men could be employed on farm work if parties of less than three were allowed to be employed at any one farm has been carefully considered, but the inquiries which have been made indicate that this would not lead to any substantial increase in the number of men so employed, and, in view of the difficulty of supplying escorts, the conclusion has been reached that this change would not be justifiable.

Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the men were supplied with clogs, which are not suitable for ploughing? Will he see that they have boots for ploughing?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly consider the suitability of clogs for ploughing.

New German incendiary Bomb

Mr. John Dugdale (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement about the new German incendiary bomb?

Miss Wilkinson: At the end of July the enemy brought into use new types of incendiary bomb, of which one was a phosphorous oil bomb and another a modification of the I-kilo incendiary having a more powerful explosive charge. Descriptions of these bombs with instructions for dealing with them were at once issued to Regional Commissioners for immediate distribution to the Fire Guard, the Civil Defence Services, the police, and industry. More detailed instructions, based upon an intensive study of these bombs, were issued to all concerned about 10 days later by circular and through leaflets and the broadsheet "The Midnight Watch." A special film dealing with the new explosive incendiary bomb will be generally released on 14th September. The instructions say that if an incendiary bomb falls where it can start a fire it must be attacked resolutely and at once, but that a bomb falling where it can do no harm should be left to burn itself out.
In attacking the bomb, the Fire Guard should make the best use of any available cover. Brickwork 3 inches thick gives full protection and a breeze wall of the same thickness gives reasonable protection. Adequate protection is not given by lath and plaster walls, wooden doors or pieces of furniture. The bomb should be attacked with the jet of a stirrup pump or until a pump is available with water thrown from behind cover. A bomb in a room can often best be attacked through a doorway from behind a wall or from outside through a window. The attack should be concentrated upon the fire rather than the bomb. As soon as the bomb explodes or seven minutes after it has fallen, the Fire Guard should attack it at close range in the normal way. In view of the danger of approaching these bombs, sandmats should not be used. As these bombs are heavier and penetrate further than the old ones, all floors should be searched after an attack.

Mr. Dugdale: Who is to decide whether to attack the bomb immediately or leave it for seven minutes?

Miss Wilkinson: That must be left to the leader of the stirrup pump party. Normally, as I have said, if the bomb is in a position where it would cause a serious fire, it must be attacked resolutely and at once, but if the leader thinks that the fire can be dealt with safely afterwards, life should not be risked.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCABIES

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Health whether, since the issue of the White Paper, he has given further consideration to the question of making scabies notifiable in view of the opinion of many local authorities that this course would be of material help to them?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have considered this question, and, while I am advised that it would not be appropriate to make scabies notifiable generally, I am prepared to consider applications from local authorities to have scabies made notifiable in their district, upon being satisfied that the authority have adequate facilities for diagnosis and treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIEPPE RAID

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in respect of the enemy having anticipatory information of the recent raid on Dieppe; and what steps he is taking to prevent such leakage of information in future?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite satisfied that there was no leakage to the enemy of prior information about the Dieppe raid. The second part of the Question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Lord Privy Seal what are to be the relations between the new Scientific Advisory Board which is to operate under his supervision and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet and the Engineering Advisory Committee, respectively?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): This Question should have been addressed to the Minister of Production, but I have been asked to reply. It would not be correct to describe the recent additions to the staff of the Minister of Production as a Board. As has been stated in the public announcement, the Minister of Production has appointed three distinguished men to his staff in the capacity of


full-time scientific advisers. Their field is co-extensive with the responsibility of the Minister. These appointments do not affect in any way the function of the Scientific Advisory Committee or the Engineering Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, who will continue to advise the Government on matters coming within their terms of reference. In appropriate cases these Committees will, no doubt, consult with the scientific advisers of the Minister of Production, as they have been accustomed to consult with the scientific advisers of other Ministers before submitting their recommendations on matters connected with their Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Man-Power

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed his review of the man-power situation; and whether, on completion, he will issue a reasoned statement of his conclusions arrived at as a result of this review?

Mr. McCorquodale: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend is at all times most anxious to give the House the fullest possible information about the manpower situation, and I have no doubt that many opportunities will occur in the course of Debate for this to be done. He does not have it in mind, however, to issue a formal report on the subject.

Mr. De la Bère: Is special consideration being given to the release of coalminers who are serving with the Forces, and also to the release of agricultural labourers, with a view to increased production of food? Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole question of the utilisation of manpower by the Government remains one of the most unsatisfactory matters connected with the conduct of the war? Is my hon. Friend aware of it, because it is about time he was aware of it? Everyone else in the country is, if he is not.

Women Interviewers

Squadron-Leader Errington: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the percentage of those under 30 years of age who interview women registered for National Service: and

whether he is aware that in many cases there is resentment by older women at the youth of those who interview them?

Mr. McCorquodale: I can assure my hon. Friend that in order to avoid any resentment such as he mentions it is the general policy of the Department to employ women of mature years on interviewing work. According to the latest figures available, which were compiled in May last, about 85 per cent. of the officers employed on this work are over 30 years of age.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Personnel, Java and Sumatra

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what action has been taken to obtain information regarding Royal Air Force personnel who were in Java and Sumatra when these places were occupied by the enemy?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): All possible steps are being taken by the Imperial Prisoners of War Committee acting through the Foreign Office to obtain information from the Japanese Government, either through the protecting power or from the International Red Cross, about R.A.F. officers and men who were in Java and Sumatra when these Islands were captured. Up to now, however, no information has been obtained through these channels. In addition, personnel from Java and Sumatra who have reached this country have been interviewed and reports are being obtained from those who got away to other countries. Any reliable information so obtained is at once communicated to the next-of-kin of the officers or airmen concerned.

China (Assistance)

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to assist China by sending her Royal Air Force units?

Captain Balfour: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) on 9th July.

Mr. Morgan: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in the event of such co-operation, separate bulletins will be issued by the R.A.F. authorities?

Captain Balfour: I would like notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (WOMEN'S WAGES)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Supply whether an agreement has been reached this year by his Department

Minimum rates of wages of female industrial employees of 21 years of age and over, employed in Royal Ordnance Factories, resulting from agreements between the Ministry of Supply and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Classes of work and Groups of Factories.
Basis of Wages Assessment.
Minimum Rates for a 47-hour week.
Approximate Percentage of R.O.F. Female Employees.




s.
d.
per cent.


Light engineering work commonly performed by women:—
National Schedule of Women's Standard Rates.
43
0
18


Fuzes, Small Arms Ammunition, Small Arms.


Filling Propellants and High Explosives into containers:—
National Schedule of Women's Standard Rates.
46
0
56


Filling Factories.






Manufacture of Shells and certain Cartridge Cases:—
Rate for Youths of 20 years of age.
51
0
4


Shell Factories.






Manufacture of propellants, explosives, and acids—previously carried out by male labour:—
80 per cent. of men's rates.
57
0
12


Explosives Factories.






Manufacture of guns, gun barrels, gunmountings, etc.:—
Men's Basic rates plus 75 per cent. of men's industrial bonus.
Provinces
10


Gun Factories.

59
0




London




62
0


Note 1—The rates payable for gun manufacture are by agreement with the Trade Unions applied specially to other classes of work at two factories, and the percentages shown above allow for this.


Note 2—These rates are applicable to women employed on production and to manual workers ancillary to production.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Supply the terms of the trade union agreement concluded in certain Government owned factories fixing wages for qualified women?

Mr. Assheton: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Adams: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the wages paid to these women are identical with those paid to men for similar work?

granting 62s. or 63s. to women working in Royal Ordnance factories, as either a basic rate or a guaranteed weekly wage; and if so, will he give particulars?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Assheton): As the particulars which my hon. Friend desires are somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the minimum rates of wages paid to women workers in the Royal Ordnance factories.

Following is the statement:

Mr. Assheton: It would be impossible to answer that Question shortly, and if the hon. Member will read the agreement, which will be circulated, perhaps he will be able to make the comparison.

Mr. Adams: Will the comparisons with men's wages be given in the REPORT?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir, a good many of the comparisons.

Mr. Thorne: Will the statement include the payment of women for the jobs they are doing at wages which have been fixed by the trade unions?

Mr. Assheton: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the reply and then, if necessary, put down a further Question.

Following is the answer:

I presume that the agreement referred to is that between the Ministry of Supply and the Amalgamated Engineering Union, reached on 28th November, 1941, to provide, as a wartime measure, for the employment of women on certain work which had hitherto formed part of a skilled mechanic's job.

This agreement provides, inter alia, for payment as follows:—
(a) In any cases in which women carry out the entire job of a mechanic without special assistance, guidance, or supervision:

The standard basic rate and bonus applicable to skilled mechanics of the grade concerned.
(b) Where women carry out such work either with special assistance, guidance, or supervision, or,
(c) Where work which once formed part of mechanics' duties has been split away from the rest:

From 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the men's basic rates and bonus according to the degree in which they show themselves able to do the men's job without special assistance, guidance or supervision.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (COLONIAL EMPIRE, TEXT BOOKS)

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any text books are at present in use in schools dealing with the history of the Colonial Empire?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wirral (Captain A. Graham), on 30th July last. The importance of including adequate teaching on the British Colonial Empire is stressed throughout the "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers." As a rule the subject finds its appropriate place in the history and geography textbooks in general use in schools, but, as I stated in my previous reply, a book on the British Commonwealth of Nations specially designed for the use of teachers is in course of preparation.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging the revival of classical learning in order to give more balance to a somewhat shallow world?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Indian Legislative Assembly (Special Session, Broadcast)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the importance of the forthcoming special session of the Indian Legislative Assembly, he will make arrangements to have a summary of the proceedings broadcast for the information of British listeners?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I do not doubt that the B.B.C. will see that this Session is adequately covered as part of the news of the day.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see to it that the attention of the B.B.C. is called to the great importance of this Session which has been called by the Government of India?

Mr. Thurtle: Obviously, the amount of time that the B.B.C. allots to this particular conference will depend upon what takes place.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In view of the fact that it is ill-informed about the facts in India, would the hon. Gentleman advise the B.B.C. not to take such liberties with a question of this kind?

Mr. Thurtle: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken in suggesting that the B.B.C. is ill-informed about India.

Mr. Davies: I have evidence to prove it.

Letters to Members of Parliament (Censorship)

Squadron-Leader Errington: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that there continues to be an increasing censorship of letters addressed to Members of Parliament; and whether he is prepared to exempt from such censorship letters addressed to Members?

Mr. Thurtle: In my view it would not be possible to defend an arrangement which differentiated between letters addressed to M.P s. and to the general public. But I can assure my hon. and


gallant Friend that any increase in the volume of censorship is due to nothing but reasons of operational security.

Squadron-Leader Errington: Can my hon. Friend say what the difficulty is in exempting from censorship letters addressed to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Thurtle: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that it would be a very invidious thing to make a distinction between Members of Parliament and other trustworthy citizens.

Mr. Shinwell: Are not Members of Parliament invited to attend Secret Sessions in order to receive secret information that the public are not allowed to receive?

Mr. Thurtle: Once an exception of this kind is made—at present there are no exceptions at all—all sorts of other classes would be making demands on that account.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: As Members from Northern Ireland who repeatedly attend the House bring correspondence to the House from citizens of Northern Ireland, why should correspondence that we Members of Parliament receive from trade union members in Northern Ireland be subject to censorship?

Mr. Thurtle: Because a duty has been laid upon the censorship to censor all correspondence from Northern Ireland from whomsoever it comes and to whomsoever it is addressed.

Mr. Lipson: Ought not citizens to have unimpeded right of access to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that the Government have no more confidence in Private Members than Private Members have in the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE STUDENTS (COURSES, GREAT BRITAIN)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that examinations are now being held in four Chinese cities for students anxious to visit this country for the purpose of taking advanced courses in engineering, shipbuilding, pharmacology and economics; and whether His Majesty's Government will invite the successful students to come here as their guests?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have seen reports to this effect which have recently appeared in the Press, but I have received no confirmation. I can, however, inform my hon. Friend that arrangements are now under consideration whereby Chinese students will be brought to this country for post-graduate courses, under the auspices of the British Universities, the British Council and the Universities' China Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (PRICE CONTROL)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rapid rise in the cost of foodstuffs and of goods in common use in Sierra Leone, he will recommend the Governor to institute the control of prices and thus mitigate the hardships prevalent in the Colony from rising prices?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Prices of foodstuffs and other goods are controlled in Sierra Leone, as in other Colonies, under the appropriate Defence Regulations. In addition, information and advice have been made available to all Colonies regarding means of mitigating the effects of the rising cost of living and the unavoidable reduction in supplies of consumption goods.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local Press have indicated that considerable quantities of goods are not at controlled prices?

Mr. Macmillan: To give a few examples of the control of goods in this Colony—rice, beef, mutton, vegetables and fruits, local palm oil, and milk, all these are subject to control Orders.

Mr. Adams: What about articles of apparel?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADOR, WASHINGTON

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the criticism made by Sir Walter Citrine at the Trades Union Congress Conference at Blackpool of His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington and his advisers, and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. Eden: My attention has been drawn to reports in the Press to this effect. It is, of course, one of His Majesty's Ambassador's duties to report and advise when necessary on any matter in the United States which might in his judgment affect unfavourably Anglo-American relations. In labour matters, Lord Halifax has the benefit of the advice of Professor Tawney. The Government are fully satisfied as to the soundness of the advice which His Majesty's Ambassador gave them.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that even Professor Tawney, with all his intellectual attainments, is hardly the proper person to decide on matters affecting trade union organisations? Would it not be appropriate to have someone on the spot capable of interpreting the minds of both the British trade union movement and the American trade union movement?

Mr. Eden: That is another question. There are other members of the staff of the Ministry with very intimate knowledge, of course, of American labour conditions, such as Mr. Harold Butler.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite Sir Walter Citrine to see him and discuss the matter?

Mr. Eden: That, also, is another question. I am dealing with the statement made about His Majesty's Ambassador and his advisers.

Colonel Evans: Is it not true that the same advice was tendered to Sir Walter Citrine by Mr. Greene himself on behalf of American labour?

Mr. Eden: I do not want to add to what I have said. I am dealing with this one point.

Mr. Lipson: Does mention of Professor Tawney's name mean that this action of the Ambassador was on the special recommendation of Professor Tawney?

Mr. Eden: The Ambassador was, of course, acting on the advice of those who are specially attached to his staff for these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — MADAGASCAR OPERATIONS

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement.
The House will already have learned that His Majesty's Government recently decided to resume operations in Madagascar and to seize key points on the West coast of the island from which enemy submarines might operate against our shipping in the Mozambique Channel. Majunga, Morondava and Nosi Be were assaulted in the early hours of yesterday (Thursday) morning and captured with little opposition and light casualties. The town of Majunga surrendered during the course of the day, and the operations against Morondava and Nosi Be were also completely successful. The operations, in which all three Services co-operated, were carried out precisely according to plan. British, Union of South' Africa and East African troops and South African Air Forces took part in the operations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for the resumption?

Sir S. Cripps: The Business when we meet again will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—If necessary, a statement will be made on the war situation; Second Reading of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords] and of the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords].
Second Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill and of the Local Elections and Register of Electors Bill.
Third Sitting Day—The Adjournment of the House will be moved, and a Debate will take place on the coal situation.

Mr. Greenwood: On the first Sitting Day when we return, if a statement is made on the war situation, will it be made in such a form as to be debatable?

Sir S. Cripps: It is so hypothetical as to whether such a statement will be made that it is impossible to say what form it will take.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of certain events this week which seem indelicate to mention, and which received considerable prominence in the Press, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider adopting the practice of allowing Members to


leave the Chamber for the purpose of securing some refreshment, say, for an hour, and suspending Business for that period?

Sir S. Cripps: Various suggestions have been made in the course of the last few days as to how matters could be improved, and I have no doubt that that suggestion will be taken into account by Members as a whole in seeing whether there can be any general improvement.

Mr. McGovern: On the second Sitting Day after the resumption will the Business include the extension of the Northern Ireland Parliament?

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that it is actually in the Bill which is now ready for hon. Members to have if they wish.

Mr. Greenwood: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a Motion which appears on the Order Paper to-day relating to India?

[That this House supports the policy contained in the Prime Minister's statement on the Indian situation announced to Parliament on 10th September.]

Yesterday I gave notice of my intention to raise this subject on the Adjournment to-day, and I would be glad if you would give a Ruling as to whether I am prevented or not from raising this Question at the beginning of our Business.

Mr. Speaker: According to the practice of the House a Motion, notice of which stands on the Paper, is capable of "blocking" the discussion of the subject matter of that Motion on a Motion for the Adjournment. But under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed, before deciding that a discussion is out of Order on this ground, to have regard to the probability of the "blocking" Motion being brought up for debate within a reasonable time. Now, as Members know, the Government have been given control of the entire time of the House. But the Motion on India which might have "blocked" the discussion of the Indian situation on the Motion for the Adjournment has been put down, not by Ministers but by Private Members, and no undertaking has been given by the Government that time will be found for its discussion. I cannot see any probability of its being discussed within a reasonable time, and I must rule, therefore, that it does not in any way

prevent the discussion of any subject on the Motion for the Adjournment to-day.

Sir Ralph Glyn: As the Motion referred to stands in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any different procedure as regards Private Members, if the Government take the whole time, from that which usually exists in peacetime? If a statement is made by the Prime Minister on a subject so vitally important as India is it not better that a Debate should be held with opportunity for a Division, and would not this have been possible if the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House had seen fit to say that it would be taken at an early date after the re-assembly?

The Prime Minister: I think myself that it would have been more convenient and workmanlike to have had a regular Debate on this matter at a later period in the Session, and I mentioned that fact to some of my hon. Friends. They put their Motion down on the Order Paper largely in answer to a somewhat challenging remark by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and it was not intended at all to use that procedure in any way so as to disappoint the House. I have been looking up what I said yesterday in the House, and it is quite clear that I did give very considerable encouragement to the idea that if hon. Members were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, a Debate would take place on India, and as I gather it would be a matter which would cause disappointment and inconvenience if that were not to be the cast:, I do not propose to make any promise or give any undertaking for a future Debate on India which would have the effect of bringing Standing Order No. 9 very unduly prominently to your attention. Therefore, I have no statement to make as to the future of the Debate other than the statement which I made yesterday.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: May the House understand from my right hon. Friend that although he does not wish to make a statement that would bring Standing Order No. 9 into undue prominence, it is intended by him that there should at as early a date as possible be a Debate on India followed by a Division, because I am quite certain that it is the wish of the entire House to record their voices on this particular subject?

The Prime Minister: In these matters many things are relatively important, but there is nothing more important than that there should not be the grievance that some people thought they were going to have a chance of speaking and then some arrangement being made which cut them out. One does not want to get anything in the nature of reproaches of that kind. Although I still have a preference for a Debate at a later stage, I consider that our good relations on the conduct of Business stand in a higher position than the differences between one of these Debates and the other. Therefore, I cannot give any undertaking when or how such a Debate will take place.

Captain Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend say that what he has said does not rule out the possibility of a Debate?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly say that, without affecting Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with the point that a subject of the importance of the Indian question should have been dealt with on a Government Motion. I think the House has a right to expect that the Government should bring the matter forward as proper Government Business and provide a day for it. Am I to understand that the Prime Minister is now saying that if the House debates the Indian position on the Motion for the Adjournment, he will regard that as a good reason for giving the House a much later opportunity than otherwise would have occurred for a proper Debate on India?

The Prime Minister: "In vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird."

Mr. Cocks: Does the Minister mean by a bird a bullfinch?

Sir R. Glyn: In view of the Prime Minister's statement and the reasons he has given for not being more definite, will he say that if this Motion remains on the Paper, when he thinks fit the earliest possible opportunity will be given for a Division?

Sir Stanley Reed: May I put this point to the Prime Minister? Those who know something of India and the East realise the immense publicity value of abuse and the limited publicity value of reasoned thought based on knowledge, and therefore, is it not of immense importance,

with a view to getting a comprehensive idea of the feeling of the House, that this matter should be carried to a Division at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Maxton: I can only speak for a very few people in the House, but if having this matter discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment will deny me an opportunity of voting in the House against the Government's policy at an early date, then I, for one, am prepared to forgo to-day's Debate.

Mr. Bellenger: May I address a question of a different character to the Prime Minister? Has his attention been called to the proceedings of the House yesterday on Service pay and allowances, and in view of the Lord Privy Seal's statement that the proposals he made yesterday were the Government's last word, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to receive a deputation from hon. Members representing all shades of opinion?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I should like to give an answer to that question without having had some opportunity of considering the matter. Other Ministers are in charge of this great block of Business for the Government, and I am so frequently adjured not to take too much upon myself, that I hope I may consider the proposal without being held definitely committed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

INDIA (SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I should like to explain why I differ from the Prime Minister as regards the wisdom of having a Debate upon India this week. It was about three days after the House rose for the Recess in August that the Government of India took action. I felt that that was a serious step to take. I am not saying that I disagree with it, and I will explain my views upon that presently, but I felt that it was incumbent upon me to arrange for my colleagues to define their attitude. This we did within three days. I felt that the House, on its reassembly, was entitled to know, from some responsible spokesman of the Government, the facts about the Indian situation, and one hoped also for some statement as to possible future action. That is why I gave the Government notice


on Monday that I proposed to raise this issue in order to get a statement. I had hoped that this statement would have been made at a time and on an occasion when it would have been debatable. Unfortunately, that was not so, but the Prime Minister did yesterday make a statement, and it seems to me puerile on the part of this House to let that statement stand unchallenged for weeks before there is an opportunity for Debate in the House.
That is why—and I have no motive except that of the well-being of India—I felt very strongly that there should be a Debate this week, and after the Prime Minister's statement yesterday I felt more than ever certain that before the House went into Recess there should be some discussion. I say nothing for the moment of the substance of the Prime Minister's speech, but I am bound to say that it was couched in language which was not calculated to improve Anglo-Indian relations—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my view. The majority of hon. Members yesterday expressed an entirely different view, a view of passionate admiration for the language which the Prime Minister used, and it was perfectly clear to me that, with the wide differences of attitude and opinion on the Indian situation which exist and which I do not wish to stoke up to-day—though I am entitled to express my own views, and I intend to do so—the form of the Prime Minister's speech was unhelpful. I cannot think that it will have a good effect on the United States. I cannot see that it will have anything but a most unfortunate effect in India itself.
I am no Congress man. I do not believe myself that Congress represents the attitude of mind which I hold. I would rather ally myself with the Untouchables [Laughter]. If people regard that as amusing, they can so regard it, but there are other kinds of untouchables in other lands, and, at least, the Untouchables in India "come clean." I think it is unfortunate, although this crisis was created by the action of the Congress Party, that the Prime Minister should have gone out of his way yesterday to state the things about the Congress which he did state. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I cannot see that any good is done by it. In a most tragic situation in India, faced now with the prospect of

invasion, I cannot see that any good service is done by exacerbating public opinion, or a section of public opinion. I should have thought that it was elementary statesmanship in circumstances of this kind that we should not go about embittering feelings but should try to do all in our power to conciliate. Let me explain the attitude of my party. Towards the end of July, a meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party had the question of India before it. I will not read the whole of the statement issued on that occasion, but I will read the part which seems to be more important. This is the attitude of the British Labour Party:
It regards with grave apprehension the possibility of a civil disobedience movement in India and its effect on the efforts of the United Nations, now engaged in a desperate struggle to preserve and extend world freedom. Such a movement, the very contemplation of which is a proof of political irresponsiblity, may imperil the fate of all freedom-loving peoples and thereby destroy all hopes of Indian freedom.
That was a perfectly frank statement and a condemnation of such a large-scale civil disobedient movement, which seemed likely to arise. For reasons which seemed good to themselves, at the week-end after the House rose—at the end of the first week of August—the Indian Government arrested the leaders of the Congress movement. On Wednesday, the responsible body of my party, on my suggestion, met to discuss the situation, and that night we issued an appeal to the Indian people in which we redefined our attitude. I said at the beginning that I am not a Congress man. We reaffirmed in August, within a fortnight of our first statement, our considered views in a resolution which stated:
The Labour Movement is compelled to regard the present attempt to organise a civil disobedience movement in India as certain to injure seriously the hope of India freedom, for such a movement must add heavily to the present burdens and anxieties of the leaders of the United Nations and give encouragement and comfort to the common enemy. The Labour Movement therefore considers that the action of the Government of India in detaining the leaders of Congress was a timely and unavoidable precaution.
We did that, not because we like wholesale arrests. We did that because of the war peril. Nobody is going to accuse my party of wavering in its support of the war. It was distasteful to


have to pass a resolution of that kind, but at least we did so. I expressed the hope in the House, before this broke, after the return of the Lord Privy Seal, that some attempt should be made to keep the door open. I can perfectly well understand that, having regard to the strategic situation, the Government cannot weaken in its determination to prevent the spread of the civil disobedience movement, which might make a rot in the country and which might imperil the war effort in the Middle East, apart from the disasters that might befall India. But our view is, and I expressed it in the House as I expressed it at the Conference of my party at Whitsuntide, that so long as a chink of light comes through the door, it is a very heavy responsibility for any man to put his foot to the door and bang it. I realise the complexities of the situation. With all respect to the Prime Minister, it did not need his kindergarten lesson yesterday to explain to us how complicated India is. We realise that, but one has to remember that there are nations in the world which do not look kindly on our attitude towards subject peoples. The United States, I fear, do not yet quite know the difference between a Dominion and a Colony, and there is the view that we have—I am bound to say it a somewhat murky past in our relations with coloured races. That is my view, and, if hon. Members shake their heads, I cannot help it; it is a view held by other people than myself

Sir John Wardlaw - Milne: I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of coloured races he does not apply that to India?

Mr. Greenwood: I should hesitate to waste the time of the House by going over the most deplorable incidents in the history of our relations with India in the early days which have scarred and still mark the Indian peoples, and have modified their outlook. I think from the point of view of our growing prestige in the world—and I take pride in it—that is becomes a matter of importance for us to show to the world that we are determined, so far as we can, to leave no stone unturned to avoid things becoming worse. I am not one of those who believe that peace is ever obtained in political controversy or in industry by all the concessions being made on one

side. I cannot think it would be right for us to concede everything which an element of Indian opinion desires, and that we should stake out no claims which we regard as necessary during war-time conditions. Without in any way going back on action which has been taken, I would hope that future action will be such as not to raise the temperature in India, and that where proposals are made they will receive the earnest consideration of the Indian Government and His Majesty's Government at home.
The Prime Minister bad not heard of this, but what has interested me during the last two or three weeks has been the expression from men of diverse views and different background of a deep desire to find a way out of this most unfortunate situation. As I said, if there is but a single gleam of hope, there is a heavy moral responsibility resting on this country from the point of view of its own standing in the world in the future, to keep it alive. I am not in a position to advise His Majesty's Government, nor would I take on such a heavy responsibility, but, if we are to be told that the last word has been said, in the last way and in the last form of words, with the last comma and with the last colon, then I say that if is not being helpful. If, on the other hand, we can convince the peoples of India of our sincerity and determination to reach a settlement, then I think we may make some considerable step forward. I can see how impossible it is to try to resume discussions with a body whose leaders are now enjoying a luxurious existence under conditions of confinement.

Mr. S. O. Davies: They are in prison.

Mr. Greenwood: I would not call it being in prison. If prisoners were treated as well as that, there would be a more frequent desire to become a prisoner. Let us admit that they are not living under harsh conditions. True, they have been deprived of their liberty, and I can see the impossibility of resuming negotiations with men who have not their freedom, and that the Government cannot very well say, "Your civil disobedience movement shall continue with all its risks, and the talks shall continue." It is with that in mind that in this Declaration of 12th August we made this appeal to the British Government. We assumed that they


would not approve any action which would unnecessarily embitter the present troubles, and we went on to say:
The British Labour movement urges the Government to make it clear that on the abandonment of civil disobedience it would be ready to resume free and friendly discussions with a view to safeguarding and implementing the principle of Indan self-government already proclaimed by the British Government and endorsed by the British Parliament, and securing the whole-hearted support of Indians in the common effort of the United Nations to win freedom for all.
That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable request, and for this reason: Since the Lord Privy Seal left India, people have been talking and making proposals, some of which do not seem to me to be reasonable, and the desire has been expressed that on the conclusion of the civil disobedience movement the Government should inaugurate new talks after all the water which has flown under the bridges since the last talks broke down. There is at least the hope, I do not say the certainty, that we might achieve some measure of understanding. That does not mean that the Indians are not called upon to do something themselves, and I should like to quote a few words from a broadcast which I made on India to America following the broadcast of the Lord Privy Seal. I would repeat the words, because I think there is a duty lying on the leaders of Indian opinion to be somewhat oncoming in this desperate situation. I stated:
If a heavy responsibility rests on Britain in the present grave emergency, an equally heavy responsibility lies on the leaders of Indian opinion. Could there not, in the face of the common danger, be a firm and honest understanding with the peoples of India to throw their whole power behind the war effort on the condition that India's destiny at the end of hostilities is to be determined by the Indian people? No British Government can in future seek to escape from decisions already taken. British Labour pledges itself to use all its power to see that the undertakings given are fulfilled. The United Nations "—
this is part of my appeal to the Indian peoples which I repeat—
will stand as trustees for the freedom of India.
That I firmly believe.
Never in human history was such an offer made to the Indian peoples with such hopes of fulfilment.
I ask, therefore, for their effective cooperation. But there must be a desire for co-operation on both sides. I do not believe that the Lord Privy Seal has had

his feelings lacerated because of the difficulties he found and because of his lack of success. We cannot deal with this in a spirit of spite and hatred. The only way in which we can do it is by showing generosity of mind and generosity of spirit. Let us, while there is the faintest shadow of an understanding, go on and on with our efforts, knowing that that understanding will be well worth the price that we may have to pay.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. I have been out to get a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday, and it appears to me that the report of the Prime Minister's statement is not in fact a report of what he said. He said, among other things, that the Congress Party was supported by funds from Indian capitalists and financiers, or words to that effect. That does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. (HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it does.")

Mr. Speaker: I have not verified the hon. Member's statement, and I cannot deal with it until I have.

Dr. Guest: Would it be possible to ask for the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman to verify whether or not he made that statement?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly cannot do that.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is in column 302.

Mr. Wedderburn: I certainly hope it may be possible to have a Debate, before very long, upon a resolution of confidence in the Indian policy of the Government. Since I shall probably not be here for the remainder of the Session, I should like to express now the great relief with which I heard the Prime Minister state yesterday in short and concrete terms the main facts which now govern the situation in India, and which are not always very well understood either in the United States or even in our own country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has taken exception to the form of the Prime Minister's statement. I think it can fairly be claimed that for a great number of years a great many of us in this country to whom it appeared that the Congress Party was not at all wisely led have always taken the greatest care—indeed perhaps we may sometimes have been too


careful—to exercise the greatest restraint in any criticism that we have felt it right to make about the leadership or the conduct of the Indian Congress Party. There has not always been a similar restraint on the part of those who have been most forward in putting forward the views of that party in this country. I am sure that no responsible people in Great Britain have ever wished that any plan for Indian self-government and Dominion status should involve domination of the other religious communities by the Hindu politicians. But it has always been recognised that the Congress Party represented a very great body of educated Hindu opinion, and it has always been and is still our hope that this body of opinion, whether under its present leadership or not, may at the earliest possible date be brought into agreement with the other religious communities, so that a workable plan may be set in being as soon as possible for the attainment of self-government. That has always been the goal at which we have aimed, and to that end I claim that we have made great endeavours, sometimes in spite of great difficulties, to conciliate the leaders of the Indian Congress Party.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if there was a chink of light in the door, we ought not to bang it. That is what many of us have felt for a good many years. I do not say it with any wish to be provocative, but the least I can say according to my own judgment is that ever since I have been in public life, the leaders of the Indian Congress Party, or at least those of them whose counsels have most prevailed, have been always irresponsible and usually mischievous. I think that is the lowest at which I can put it. The patent injustice of their claim to speak on behalf of all India has often been rivalled by the malignity of their political tactics, which have formed the greatest obstacle to the speedy realisation of Indian Home Rule. According to our ideas, any party, however foolishly it may be led, should be tolerated so long as it does not imperil the safety of the State, but no Government, whether democratically constituted or not, can allow any section of its subjects to engage in activities which are calculated to open the door of their country to a foreign invader. Even in time of peace no good Government ought to allow an organised movement to be

carried on for the purpose of paralysing the economic life of the country. The Government of India, which has acted with the greatest patience and extreme forbearance in dealing with its opponents, has now been compelled to exercise this elementary right of every Government and, in exercising it, I think the Government of India is entitled to the united support of the British House of Commons. I would beg anyone who may think it right to criticise the Government in this matter to reflect what the consequences in India might be if it were thought that any substantial number of people in Britain, which has formed for three years the centre of resistance to Axis aggression, should be prepared to connive at or excuse a campaign of civil disobedience whose only effect can be the comfort and military advantage of our enemies.

Mr. Maxton: That is not the objective of the campaign.

Mr. Wedderburn: That is its effect. As to its being the objective, I think that is a matter of opinion. The contribution which India is making towards our common victory is a very great one and is growing in volume every day. You will not encourage those men in India who are willing to fight and to work for victory if you appear to countenance a movement which is in effect, if not in intention, a treasonable one. In our own country we have locked up quite a large number of people, although sometimes it has seemed they may be deficient not so much in their patriotism as in their sanity, but certainly the forbearance of the Indian Government in dealing with potential Quislings has been far greater than that which has been shown by the British Government at home. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield has recognised the necessity of the action which the Government of India have taken It is time that firm action was taken. I would add, with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister, that it is also time that the true facts were plainly stated and repeated. If the Americans do not know the difference between a Colony and a Dominion, a statement such as that of the Prime Minister will have a good effect in illuminating them. It is time that the true facts should be continually asserted, so that the world may understand the purpose at which we are aiming in India


and may appreciate the justice of the action which the Government of India have been compelled to take.

Mr. Ridley: On the one or two occasions on which I have had the opportunity of addressing the House on India I have ventured to make appeals to His Majesty's Government. They have not been altogether without success. Some of the success may have been accidental, but success there was. I venture to make one to-day to underline the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that, with a full recognition of the heavy responsibility which the Government at home and in India carry in this matter, nothing shall be done in the present situation which will unnecessarily embitter a situation already grave and difficult. On the last occasion when I was able to say a word about this matter I ventured to make a dual appeal to the Government, first, to state their policy in relation to India with clarity and precision, and, second, to attempt to make early personal contact with the leaders of Indian opinion and Indian communities. I cannot flatter myself that what subsequently happened was the result of my personal appeal, but I am glad to recognise that in the White Paper the policy of the Government was stated with clarity and precision and that in the visit of the Lord Privy Seal to India, unsuccessful though it may have been, there was made the kind of personal contact with the leaders of Indian opinion and Indian communities which I desired.
No one would desire to minimise the importance and significance of these two events. Nobody who takes the trouble to read again and again the White Paper can doubt that the right of the Indian people to decide their own destiny has now been explicitly recognised by the British Government and the British Parliament. If the proposals in the White Paper were now accepted by the Indian communities, India would have in the post-war world a position of equality with ourselves and the rest of the free Dominions with all the rights, including the right of secession, which that equality involves. I earnestly hope that that is clear to Indian opinion and to world opinion as a whole. I strongly doubt, however, whether the world yet really recognises the importance and the size of the step which has been

taken in this matter. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to tell the House what steps the Government have taken and are continuing to take to make Indian opinion as far as it can be reached and to make world opinion as a whole understand the size and magnitude of the offer which is included in the White Paper.
If anybody, for instance, looks back over the development of British policy in relation to India over the last 30 years, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there has been an altogether revolutionary change. Thirty years ago we dominated India in the old-fashioned imperialist way, and we desired to continue to do so. To-day we no longer desire, as I read the White Paper, to continue that domination. On the contrary, we offer India an avenue to complete freedom, and I wish most fervently that she could be persuaded to take it. It is our duty to make plain to the world that the proposals in the White Paper are our proposals and that the responsibility for refusing them is in India and not here. I believe that, difficult though the present stiuation is, even now the formal acceptance by the Indian community of the post-war proposals embodied in the White Paper would in itself make a great contribution to the easing, if not to a solution, of the immediate difficulties of the constitutional problem.
I want to add a word to what was said by my right hon Friend about the arrests. My own party has declared that the mere contemplation of a civil disobedience movement was itself evidence of political irresponsibility. It further declared that the arrests were timely and unavoidable precautions. I will say for myself that if people with deliberation and of set purpose embark upon a course of action which involves violence and general obstruction of law, consequences must follow. Although it may be comfortable to us here several thousands of miles away to criticise the course of action in India, we would not be fair to men and women on the spot, mainly Indians themselves, carrying grave responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order, if we did not here give them all the support they have the right to look for from us. I am not sure that leadership in India has enhanced its prestige in the last few months. There may well be millions of Indians, tired of internal bickering and tired also


of the curious mental operations of Mr. Gandhi, who are anxious for a new leadership to a world of freedom and reality. In that situation may reside our great opportunity. Bernard Shaw once said of Lord Rosebery that he had never missed a chance of losing an opportunity. Let us, therefore, see that we do not miss this opportunity. I have recently been reading an interesting pamphlet which embodies the White Paper by Mr. Graham Spry, whom the Lord Privy Seal may know, for he is a Canadian journalist who was on the fringe of the Indian tour. I take from the introduction written by Mr. Spry two pertinent quotations:
The document which Sir Stafford Cripps brought to India set out in clear and precise terms the steps by which Indians themselves could achieve self-government and draw up their own constitution. This document, published on March 30, provides that not Englishmen in England, or Englishmen in India, but Indians themselves in India should determine their own constitutional powers and their relations with other States.
That is the conclusion of an independent observer. He concludes by saying:
Thus, the long-term proposals set out precise steps to full and complete self-government. Thus, the short-term proposals offered the India political parties opportunity, through their own leaders, to administer and control all but actual defence measures themselves wthin the Government of India and to share, with equal authority in the British War Cabinet and the Pacific War Council, the control and shaping of higher strategy.
The position thus described should, in my view, be made known throughout the world, whatever trouble may be involved in the process of making it known. We should make it known that after the calling off of the Civil Disobedience movement negotiations could be immediately resumed. It is on record; the Prime Minister himself put it on record again yesterday, with a bluntness which it was evident was a little disconcerting to many Members, and I even found it so myself. On reflection I am bound to reach the conclusion that bluntness is not unhealthy and is to be preferred to evasion and elaborate wordiness.
There has been some reference to the Prime Minister's attitude towards the India Bill. It occurred also yesterday in a supplementary Question. I cannot help reflecting that the more severe the criticism of that attitude and the more justified it may be the more remarkable is the

change in the Prime Minister's attitude as indicated by the acceptance of the White Paper proposals. It is a little hard, after having accepted a new attitude by renouncing an old one to find no reciprocation on the part of other people. I have therefore reached the conclusion that what has been described as the failure of my right hon. Friend is, in fact, no more than the failure of Congress in the main to grasp and take advantage of a great opportunity.
I come back to my point that I hope the Government will make it clear—indeed, I think they have already made this clear—that the White Paper proposals still stand. I do not quite understand how that rather awkward phrase "the proposals are withdrawn" came into general acceptance, but it led to much misunderstanding. I think it should be made unquestionably clear that the White Paper proposals still stand and can still be discussed, and that on the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience movement there could be a reopening of negotiations at any moment with a real opportunity of success. Negotiations could be reopened on the basis of the White Paper, with every consideration to be given to whatever points it might be necessary for the negotiators to raise. Mine is a small voice in this matter but I should like to urge the Indian movements to accept the post-war offer. I should like to urge the Congress Movement to resume office in the vacated Provinces, and I should like to urge our own Government to consider most carefully its own personnel in the Indian Government, and be quite certain that from top to bottom there is a gradual acceptance of the policy embodied in the White Paper. In this matter I think the Prime Minister might easily be as courageous as he was in changing the command in the Middle East. The other Indian Civil appointments should be made from people who are welcome in India and whose devotion to democratic aspirations is unquestionable.
I reflect once more upon the great change in the British attitude in this matter, and I cannot refrain from expressing my opinion that the action of Congress in the last few months has been a grave injury to the cause of the Indian people. That was painfully evident yesterday, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make it


clear that although the threads of contact and negotiation have been snapped and broken they are not beyond repair, and that it will also be made clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has made it clear, that the rejection of the proposals of His Majesty's Government by the leaders of Indian opinion imposes on the latter the solemn responsibility of making specific alternative proposals themselves. It should also be plain that the possibility of implementing those proposals—proposals, I must say again, such as have never been made before within the scope of British politics—depends entirely on the victory of the United Nations in the present conflict. If we sit on the wrong side of the armistice table the possibility of Indian freedom has gone for a hundred years. Our victory is her victory and our defeat is her defeat. There is a great responsibility on the leaders of Indian opinion to prove to all the world that the desire for freedom is not merely a philosophic aspiration and that a realistic hatred of Fascism is as deep in the Indian mind as it is elsewhere. Not less, I believe, is there the responsibility on the part of His Majesty's Government to make it clear that they seek an opportunity whenever it shall present itself for the reopening of negotiations and for the settlement of an already difficult and embittered question.

Mr. Palmer: In view of my associations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I hope the House will allow me to make it plain that anything I say upon this subject is said entirely on my own responsibility. My direct personal experience of India is very limited, much more limited than my interest in the subject, but I did have the very special privilege of being present in India with my right hon. and learned Friend during his mission there this year, and as a result of that experience I was able to form some impressions of my own, whatever they may be worth. Being there at that time meant that I was in India at the precise moment when it appeared most possible that agreement might be reached. Certainly there were responsible elements in Congress, among the leaders of Congress, who were trying to seek an agreement with us at that stage. Unfortunately those leaders were in the minority, however substantial the

minority may have been. At that moment Congress was, in fact, at a crossroads. If the minority had had their way and had chosen the path of responsibility they would have had to abandon very largely the three principles on which their power has been built up—the three principles of extreme nationalism, of communal feeling, and, above all, the principle which is Mr. Gandhi's own special principle of nonviolence. A metamorphosis would have had to take place replacing those three rather negative principles by three positive principles of co-operation on a wider scale with us and other communities in India and with those forces that were prepared to put up violent opposition to Japanese invasion. However, that metamorphosis did not take place. The cleavage which followed very soon became apparent. The events of the last few months are nothing more than a determined attempt on the part of Mr. Gandhi to regain lost power and the prestige which he saw slipping away from him. In order to do that, he has had to base his policy more and more on revolutionary principles. The extent to which he has been successful was told us yesterday in the Prime Minister's statement.
I was delighted that that statement set this problem in proportion, for all the world to see what it consists of; but, of course, it did more than that. It gave a great deal of reassurance. It reassured us completely that the handling of this very difficult situation by the Government of India has been patient, fair and firm. It reassured us with regard to internal order in India, as to the extent of the war effort there, both on the material side and industrial side, and the extent to which defences in India had been reinforced, not only by voluntary recruitment in India but by Forces sent there from here and elsewhere. Finally, it reassured us in the most emphatic terms that the broad principles of the offer made by the Lord Privy Seal stand, and that nothing can add to them or take away from them. Those are the main considerations in the Indian situation from any point of view, but particularly they are the main considerations as to the future of India herself. It is greatly to be hoped that the Congress will be able to play some part in the future shaping of India's destiny, but, if such is to be the case, from the record of the last few months I am convinced, that


a change of heart must take place, first of all, among the leaders of Congress themselves.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) appealed to His Majesty's Government, and the Secretary of State for India made it clear, in answer to a Question at Question time to-day, that any move that may be made in India towards restoring national unity will be welcomed by His Majesty's Government. I personally think—and this is a very generally shared feeling—that the proposals made by the Lord Privy Seal last March went as far as any initiative that could be taken by His Majesty's Government could possibly go. That is true of the contents of those proposals, but it was rendered still more true by the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to negotiate an agreement among the interested parties in India. Nothing more could possibly have been done, and the proposals were rejected, mainly, and indeed almost solely, because of the uncompromising demand by the majority of Congress leaders for unlimited power. That was the real obstacle. It was not possible to get the leaders of the different political parties to meet one another, even in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Since that time Mr. Rajagopalachariar has shown great courage in attempting to bring the leaders of the different parties together. Other efforts have been made by other disinterested persons, but none of those efforts has led to any result. In that case, we are entitled to ask what value can possibly be attached to the proposals put forward by the Congress Working Committee in their resolutions of 14th July and 5th August. Those resolutions demanded that the British should leave India, as far as government was concerned, and stated that a provisional government would then be formed, but they gave no indication of how that could possibly be done. On the record of lack of co-operation, two very striking instances of which I have just given, I do not see that any possible value can be attached to that supposition. It would not be a provisional government which would follow the withdrawal of the British, but a civil war. I do not think that the Government of India have had any alternative to the course which they have taken in the last

few weeks and months. They have given Congress leaders every possible chance to play a responsible part, but the campaign which those leaders have organised has not merely been non-violent but has become violent as well, aiming at disorder and interruption harmful to the war effort. Under such conditions I do not see what approach His Majesty's Government can possibly now make to those leaders.

Dr. Haden Guest: I put a Question to the Secretary of State for India to-day, whether the instructions about this nonviolence campaign would be published. I was given an evasive answer. In view of the fact that we do not know what these instructions are, are not the hon. Member's suggestions rather too wide-sweeping? This is something of which this House, at any rate, has no concrete evidence.

Mr. Palmer: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point. I heard his Question and the answer. I do not see that there are any grounds whatever for supposing, after the record of the last month and of the attempts that have been made to find a means of taking a successful initiative, that the Government of India would have taken these extreme steps unless they were entirely satisfied in their own minds on the facts at their disposal.

Dr. Guest: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's confidence.

Mr. Palmer: It is a matter of opinion. We must be ready to welcome any signs of a genuine change of heart.

Mr. Cove: While they are in gaol?

Mr. Palmer: Meanwhile, the war, and the defence of India, are to be carried on. We have had the great pleasure in the last few days of welcoming in this country the safe arrival of the Indian representatives on the War Cabinet and the Pacific Council, and I know that I shall be speaking on behalf of all Members in this House in extending to them our very best wishes for the part which they will undoubtedly play in organising the victory which alone will be the indispensable condition for India's future freedom.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I think we are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)


for the speech with which he opened this Debate—with a very great deal with which I agree—and I am very glad he made that speech in his effective way from that Box. I do not think that on the whole we have had a very good week in this House, unfortunately; the proceedings yesterday, when the Prime Minister made his announcement, were also rather unfortunate. I cannot help feeling that a good deal of party spirit is being displayed on the Benches opposite, and, if I may say so, I think it is a mistake, on a vitally important question of this sort, for one group of Members of Parliament to put down a Motion without getting the co-operation of all parties, or at any rate of other parties, in this House. I think I was right in the impression I received yesterday that we were almost back to pre-war party days, and I am glad—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that it is not in accordance with our practice to discuss the Motion which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Roberts: I must apologise; in any case I should not have wanted to pursue the matter any further. I feel that the two speeches which have been made from the back benches opposite have at any rate been phrased most admirably and in a way in which, while speaking their minds clearly, could not be described as giving unnecessary offence to that party in India which the speakers were criticising. With regard to Congress, both those speakers made it very clear that they dislike and disapprove of the Congress party, and that they think its leadership, not only now but for long enough, has been unwise. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) suggested that it would only be when the Leaders of Congress changed their policy very considerably that they could have an effective voice in the future of India.

Mr. Palmer: The point I was trying to make was that there did exist a minority of people who were prepared to play a responsible part, but that they were, unfortunately, a minority. That minority would be prepared to pursue quite a different policy, a policy of positive cooperation. If they could have their say, things would be quite different. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Roberts: Let me say before I go any further that I deplore as such as any other hon. Member that the leaders of a very large party in India, at a time like this, should have been preparing or at any rate threatening a campaign which was bound to weaken the war effort of India and the United Nations. That is common, ground with us, but I do not think I am reading too much into the speeches to which we have listened in saying that many of my colleagues on the opposite side seem to be deciding what a democratic party in India shall think, and how it shall be led, before they are prepared to carry out the undertakings which this House and the Government have given with regard to the self-government and future constitutional development of India. I must say that I think that that is one of the difficulties in which the party which sits on those benches finds itself to-day, and one of the difficulties which we have to face.
Let us be quite frank; I think plain speaking is a good thing. Many members of Congress have looked for inspiration not to this country but to certain of our Allies, Russia and China, perhaps before some Members of this House were quite as enthusiastic about those Allies as they are to-day. Let us be quite frank; the Committee of Congress are Socialists, some of them are extreme Socialists, but that, I submit, is not the point. If we are going ahead, if we mean what the Prime Minister stated in the first sentences of his statement yesterday, which appeared to me to be the really vital words in his statement, namely, that the proposals recently made by the Lord Privy Seal still stand, if we mean to go on with them, it is no use saying whether we like the politics of the largest party in India or not.
I think the situation which has developed in India is deplorable, and in saying that I am sure that I am expressing the views of a very large number of people in this country. I do not think it helps very much at the present moment to try to allocate praise or blame. I consider that many of the Congress leaders have been as anti-Fascist, and as much against the brutality and aggressiveness of the totalitarian States, as many of the leaders of the democratic nations. I should need a lot of convincing that Mr. Gandhi was pro-Japanese. He is not. He may be a pacifist, and pacifists


find themselves in difficulties in war-time as to the policy to follow. Pandit Nehru has taken a prominent part in the leadership of his people against earlier acts of aggression by the Japanese and by the Germans, and it is deplorable that it should become necessary to imprison such leaders. In my opinion it is a sad failure of statesmanship that that situation should have arisen.

Miss Rathbone: Would my hon. Friend say whose statesmanship has been at fault? Has it been a failure of British statesmanship, or rather of Indian statesmanship?

Mr. Roberts: As I said, I do not think that to pursue that matter into detail at the moment is really very helpful, because we have to look to the future. But we have had some experience of these matters before. There are other parts of the world which have become Dominions. There is South Africa and—I hate to mention it because it is perhaps not a very happy example—there is Ireland. Again, to the hon. Member for Winchester, who spoke of noticing a tendency on the part of Congress to become more extreme, may I say that any study of any of these other precedents shows that the longer agreement is postponed, whoever is at fault, the more extreme the Nationalist party becomes?

Mr. Palmer: That was just the process I was describing.

Mr. Roberts: This is no new process. It arises out of delay; it arises out of exacerbation; it arises out of the frustration of these perfectly normal and desirable ambitions which the Indian people cherish to be free, and the longer the realisation of these ambitions is postponed the more embittered will feeling become. Therefore, I would say to the Secretary of State that I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that any opportunity for negotiating will be taken. I am sure he desires to end the present situation. I am sure he must feel the disappointment that so many of us feel that this situation should have arisen in India. There is only one constructive suggestion I should like to make, and I am conscious that I speak as a person without intimate knowledge of India. Unfortunately, we in this House do rule India at the present time,

and upon our judgments, whether well-founded or not, the present state of affairs has arisen.
I make this suggestion. The leaders of Indian opinion have not always derived their inspiration from this country though no doubt we have bred in India itself a belief in Western democracy. They have looked to America and other countries, and they still so look. This internal conflict in India is not a conflict only between the British Government and the political parties in India. It is a conflict which affects all the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said that the unity of the United Nations was a guarantee of the eventual independence of India. I wonder whether that guarantee could not be made more practical, whether some help could not be gained by freely admitting that we are not alone interested in this problem, and by freely admitting that perhaps the representatives of other countries who stand to be just as seriously affected, such as the Chinese or the Americans, or the Russians for that matter, by the development of this conflict should be brought into this question. Before the war we used to advocate from these benches the submission of international disputes for third-party judgment. I think this is an occasion when such a policy might bring confidence to the persons concerned, and might reinforce and strengthen our position in the whole world in trying to find a solution to this admittedly most difficult problem. Finally, I would only like to add that in the leading article of "The Times" to-day there is this sentence, which seems to me to express my view as to what our purpose should be at the present time:
To rally the good-will of all Indians at a moment when the enemy is at the gates is a task of supreme importance.
I realise how invaluable the services of the fighting races of India are, but I say with all the sincerity I have, and any emphasis I can command, that the value of having freely on our side, or at all events, not actively against us, all parties in India at the present time cannot be over-estimated.

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes: When this Debate first started I was rather of the opinion that it was a mistake to have the Debate on the Adjournment, and that on


the other hand it was very important to have a Debate on India as soon as we possibly could. But in the course of this Debate I have rather changed my opinion, and I think it has been very useful indeed to have this Debate upon the Adjournment in addition to having a Debate upon India at the earliest possible time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) laid down various aspects of the case from his point of view with which perhaps all of us must agree. I should also like, if I may, to congratulate the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) upon his speech, with almost every word of which I agree. I feel that this Debate has shown that upon almost all points we have common ground. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said there must be a desire for co-operation on both sides. He said that we all wanted a Debate on India, that this tragic situation must be ended as soon as possible, that we must leave no stone unturned, that we must not raise the temperature in India, that we must be in favour of keeping the door open. He mentioned the chink of light. Surely all of us agree with every single one of those points?
I hope we shall remember how very important it is to realise the difficulties which face all the people in India who are responsible for carrying on the day-by-day routine administration, and that we must not do anything which makes that labour more difficult or irksome. On the other hand—and I watch India with great affection and great hopes for the future—I personally feel that conditions, although they are so difficult, are slowly and steadily improving. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. We need to be very careful indeed as to what we do or say at the present time. We want, as has been said, to leave the door open for negotiations whenever negotiations are practicable or show the slightest hope of success. I think we ought to congratulate the Government of India on the very courageous way in which they have tackled this grave situation.
I was in India during an almost identical form of movement in 1930–31. I have again seen step after step forced upon the Government of India for practically the same reasons as were then in being. Nothing could be more deplorable than for the difficulties of the Allies to be used—this is an aspect which, of course,

did not arise at that time—as a weapon with which to throw off all British connection with India. Every hon. Member will agree in his heart that there can be no other reply to such a challenge than the one given by the Viceroy. Further negotiations with Congress must be started whenever it is possible to do so on a reasonable basis, and I am sure that the door is open; but if one side makes it impossible to negotiate, the other side must wait until conditions change. Negotiations are impossible until the Congress leaders cease their demands for the withdrawal of the British from the country.
We have often been told that the root of our troubles in India was the suspicion of all classes as to our sincerity. That is an extraordinarily unfortunate psychological arena to get into, and one of immense complexity and difficulty to get out of. But I cannot imagine that anyone could entertain such suspicions after the explicit assurances about the Government's policy which were conveyed to India by the Lord Privy Seal. We know that Congress has for years demanded a Constitution drawn up by Indians themselves and ratified by a Constituent Assembly. The draft declaration which the Lord Privy Seal took with him stated that immediately hostilities ceased a Constitution-making body, elected by the Provincial Legislatures, would be set up, and His Majesty's Government pledged themselves to implement forthwith the Constitution so framed. The draft declaration went on to state that the Government would create a new Indian Union, which would be in no way subordinate in any of its domestic and external affairs. At his Press Conferences, which I studied very carefully at the time, the Lord Privy Seal affirmed categorically, with, of course, the backing of the Government, that the Indian Union would be entitled to disown its allegiance to the Crown, and that no British troops would be kept in the country, except at the request of the Union, which would enjoy all the privileges of a sovereign State. Surely no fairer or more generous statement could have been made. I think that, as the hon. Member for Clay Cross said, it was a great mistake on the part of Congress, not only from its own party point of view but from the point of view of India nationally, not to accept and try to work that proposal. But it changed its ground, and demanded the immediate


supercession of the Viceroy s Executive Council by a nominated Cabinet, responsible to no one but itself and irremovable. The Lord Privy Seal pointed out that this would constitute an absolute dictatorship of majorities and, quite rightly, I think that any major change in the Constitution in war time was impossible. There, again, I think all hon. Members will agree.

Mr. Cove: No.

Sir F. Sykes: If we realise the immense responsibility of changing the form of Government for that vast country in the middle of the war, with the Japanese at the gates, we must surely realise that it was not at all practicable.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it any better to keep the leaders in prison while the Japanese are at the gates? Does that help to rally the people to the British cause?

Sir F. Sykes: I think conditions otherwise would be made so much more difficult for the Administration as to render it impossible to run the country. In fact, I think you would practically have a civil war in the country. That is my opinion.

Mr. Cove: There is one now.

Sir F. Sykes: The Viceroy, at all events, has since then gone a great way to meeting the demands for greater responsibility at the centre, by increasing his Council to 15, of whom 11 are non-official Indians. The portfolio of Defence, the chief bone of contention, certainly in my time, is now in Indian hands. It is very significant that among the recent accessions to that Council is my friend Dr. Ambedkar, the representative of the millions who constitute the depressed classes. I would point out, too, that the action of the Indian Government in arresting Gandhi and other Congress leaders was the work of this Council, all ardent nationalists, and was neither proposed nor initiated by the Secretary of State or by the British Government. You have also to remember that Mr. Rajagopalachariar, who, I think, is one of the most able of all the Congress leaders, a former Prime Minister of Madras, and one of the most influential members of the Congress party, has now entirely dissociated himself from the action of Mr. Gandhi and his followers.
A common mistake in America is to think that Congress represents Indian opinion as a whole. I do not think that that is believed in this country now, but, unfortunately, it is still believed by people in other of the United Nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would strongly deprecate negotiations with Congress if they are based on the assumption that Congress speaks for the country as a whole. What would be the result of giving in to Congress demands at present? I repeat that we want to enter into negotiations at the earliest possible moment, in order to get away from this deadlock, but it must be on reasonable grounds.
The final point I want to make is that the withdrawal of the British and American troops would, in my opinion, only lay India open to all the horrors experienced in Burma, Malaya, and the Philippines, and it would also be a betrayal of our Allies, especially of China, incidentally, whose heroic struggles and sufferings have been the admiration of civilisation. I wonder whether the House realises that India—and I am in the closest touch with India still, I am glad to say—regards this as a national war. Her troops are largely commanded by Indian officers, recruits are daily pouring in, and their deeds in the field have won the unstinted praise of everybody who has seen them or knows what they have done. To do anything to weaken that war effort would be a betrayal of India and would, as has already been said, be an indefinite deterrent to India attaining self-government, which we all want and in which we all believe on the basis of the White Paper which the Lord Privy Seal took out. I do hope that, whatever we say in this House, our words will go out to India to try and get them to realise that we want to help them in every way we can.

Mr. Maxton: It is with some regret that I should have to take this opportunity on an Adjournment day of dealing with a matter of this great importance. We are discussing something that affects the lives of nearly 400,000,000 people, and I have some complaint as a Member of the Opposition in this House at the way in which this whole Indian business has been handled in these recent weeks. The timing of the change from our political methods-to the


iron-hand for the day that this House went for its autumn Recess did not appear to me to be a pure accident. [Interruption.] Nothing was happening in those two or three days that justified the Government's waiting until we had gone to our several areas and then to swoop upon and imprison the leaders of Indian political thought, and having done that, which was a complete change in the policy that had been pursued since the beginning of the war—indeed, a complete change in the policy which had been pursued since the time of the India Act—they refused the request to bring this House together for an opportunity of dealing with the situation. And then, when we do come back in the ordinary course of events, they refuse to provide the appropriate opportunity for this House to give its vote either of confidence in the action of the Government or of no confidence in their change of policy and in their drastic action in India. They refuse to make such an opportunity for the House, and indeed, if I am to understand the Prime Minister's statement correctly, they stimulated the putting on the Paper of a blocking Motion that would prevent us debating it.

Sir S. Cripps: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxton: What else could it mean? The Prime Minister stated quite plainly from that Box that it had been discussed in conversation.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I must correct that. I understand that the hon. Members in question put down their Motion in response to a challenge from Members on the other side of the House, and it was later in the evening that the Prime Minister was informed of it.

Mr. Maxton: And the Prime Minister told them to go ahead.

Mr. Amery: The Prime Minister was quite willing that there should be what hon. Members wanted—a set Debate with a Division. When he afterwards learned that that would be regarded as a postponement of to-day's Debate by Members on the other side and would be regretted by them, he at once conformed to what he understood to be the wishes of hon. Members opposite in order to avoid any possible reproach that the Debate to-day was being deliberately postponed.

Mr. Maxton: And he said, "Yes. If you get your way to-day, you will get your Debate on the Adjournment, but you will get no promise." By taking this Debate on the Adjournment you have reduced the possibilities of getting an effective and constitutional decision.

Sir S. Cripps: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The Prime Minister explained quite precisely that he could not give any such promise, because if he had done so it would have prevented the Debate to-day. His sole object was not to prevent a Debate to-day, because he understood that a number of hon. Members wished to have it, and he was therefore precluded by the Rules of Order from saying anything definite about any subsequent Debate.

Mr. Maxton: He expressed himself very badly indeed if that was his intention, and it is a most unusual thing for the Prime Minister to express himself badly on matters of that description. Therefore, I do not wish to take up the time of the House on this ineffective occasion, at this period of Parliamentary time, which is usually devoted to the left-over odds and ends and scraps, to deal with the affairs of 350,000,000 human beings. I want to say a few words both in reply to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India, who I am sorry has had to leave. I think it is most unfortunate for this country that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India, thrown into office at this time for entirely other reasons, should have the defining of a new Indian policy and the defining of an attempt to establish the strong hand in India again. Everybody in this House who was here at the time of the India Debates knows perfectly well that there were no two Members of this Assembly who were more hostile to any extension of political liberty in India than the two right hon. Gentlemen. They led for months a revolt against their Government in this House, blocking, delaying, preventing. [Interruption.] I know that there were differentiations in the approach. I am satisfied that neither of these two right hon. Gentlemen has the faintest idea to give self-government to India at all, Mark you, I am not saying this in any opprobious way. It is part of the political philosophy—it is the philosophy of my hon. Friend opposite—the philosophy of the Herrenvolk, that we are a superior


40,000,000 people capable of running the affairs of these 350,000,000 people.
It is no good telling us that there are different groups, ideas and sects in India, because mere are those same things in Great Britain. Why should we attempt to diminish the influence and power of the Congress Party in India? Everybody knows that they are not the only political party in India. They have the intention of being a permanent party in India. They are an association of political groups who are united on one issue—securing self-government for India. On the occasions when the electorate were tested on the widest franchise which has ever been available, Congress candidates secured an overwhelming majority of the votes cast. If my recollection serves me aright, they were in control of the Government in about eight of the urban provinces. I am speaking only from memory. That is as good a mandate as the Conservative party has in this country and is a better mandate than the Prime Minister has in this country. Even among Moslems they can command greater support than the Moslem League itself when it comes to an electoral test. Therefore, do not attempt to pooh-pooh them and say they are of no account.
Exactly the same sort of thing happened in regard to Ireland when de Valera was clapped in gaol. It was said, "These are only a few extremists. The Irish Nationalist party does not speak for all these people. De Valera is only some half-Italian, half-Spanish offspring." Yet this so-called inconsiderable Sinn Fein party swept the whole electoral field in Ireland. Do not let us make the same mistake again with reference to India. Do not wait until you have to concede to force what you could have easily granted out of decency and out of the principles you have avowed before the whole world. You tell the world you are fighting this war for liberation, democracy and freedom, but for India freedom comes later. You say you are fighting for the freedom of Czechoslovakia, Greece, Norway, Poland, Abyssinia—which has just been granted its freedom—and all the rest, but for India it is, "No." For India it is a post-dated cheque. The Indian people are not an inferior body, of people. They have as much political sagacity and wisdom as the majority of

Members in this House; some have much more political skill and greater agitational ability than I have. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave us a description of what he said had happened. He said:
The Congress party has now abandoned in many respects the policy of non-violence which Mr. Gandhi has so long inculcated in theory.
It is no good trying to pooh-pooh this very great intellect, this very great man—
and has come into the open as a revolutionary movement designed to paralyse the communications by rail and telegraph…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; col. 303, Vol. 383.]
Well, I get the newspapers, and I do He know that this has happened. My understanding of the most recent developments in Indian political changes of power is that there was a considerable struggle between Mr. Nehru and Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi's non-violence view was defeated in favour of Mr. Nehru's view that India would fight the enemy, would not be non-resistant as Mr. Gandhi desired, would be prepared to fight the Japanese if they dared to invade India, but if there was to be co-operation between India and Britain, then they must have control over the defence of the country they intended to defend. That is my description of the most recent developments. I do not know about this revolutionary movement designed to paralyse communications, loot shops and lead to sporadic attacks on the Indian police. If I am not misleading myself completely, that happened after the arrests and not before. Do not delude yourselves that you have justification that will stand up before the world.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) when he goes on his journeying to China—and I wish him every success on his mission and a safe return—will not say to Chiang Kai-shek all the things about India that he has said here to-day, because to say the least he will not be representing one Member.

Mr. McGovern: And a lot of other people.

Mr. Maxton: When a man goes on a particular mission that is described as being in the name of the House of Commons he does so for the whole of the House of Commons, including me. He may apologise and excuse and say I am


only one, but if he does not say I am here and give my point of view, he is not giving a fair picture. I agree that you cannot establish a full Constitution in the middle of a war, but you can give a nation in the middle of a war the essence of its Constitution, the reality and the responsibility of its freedom. You can work out details later; indeed, you can work out a lot of details in the process of the job. In a large number of Provinces there were effective elected Governments functioning for a number of years. It was an act of this House that set them up. I say that you can quite easily get them re-established. You have to aim at getting out of them the representative men for a Central Government. You can get an alliance with the Indian people similar to the alliance that you have with Egypt. You can perfectly well do all these things in the middle of a war, and in doing them you will prove to the Indian people and to the world that you are genuine, that you mean what you say, that to the extent that you can give justice during a war you will give it. That, in my belief, would be the intelligent and statesmanlike way of handling this situation. You have started on the road of force. You will have to have more. Already you are flogging with light canes; you may say it is very trivial, but it is the most humiliating thing that a grown-up man can have, whether it is painful or not.

Mr. Colegate: The Congress are burning policemen.

Mr. Maxton: I have yet to hear the evidence of that. I do not believe that any politician, any supporter of Congress, any average Indian, ever did anything to burn a policeman. Do not believe it.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask my hon. Friend, whose desire for the truth we all recognise, to remember a case at Chauri-Chaura in the first civil disobedience movement when 30 Indian policeman were burned to death? Mr. Gandhi said, "I have committed an error of Himalayan magnitude." That error he is repeating to-day, with exactly the same results.

Mr. Maxton: It still has to be proved to me that there was a deliberate act by Indian people of burning Indian policemen. When such things start, what is controlled by the Government on the

one side and by the leaders of the opposition on the other will proceed on reasonable and decent lines, but a whole lot that is uncontrolled may happen away out of the hands of the leaders of the central control on both sides. Certainly, you may take it that there will be all sorts of brutal things.

Mr. McGovern: Remember Amritsar.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, the hon. Member opposite will not deny Amritsar. Nobody here wanted that, but it was done. We have said that we mean freedom for India; we said it before the war and we said it in the Atlantic Charter. Now is the time to do something definite towards it. If my two right hon. Friends who are taking the trouble to listen to the Debate, although they are not the two men who have responsibility for the position in which we are to-day, will be advised by me, they will make this issue one of personal importance to each of them. I say to them, do not allow yourselves to be out-manœuvred in the interests of sheer Conservative Imperialism in the handling of Indian affairs.

Sir Stanley Reed: One of the most difficult things I have to do in the House on the rare occasions on which I speak has been to differ from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), for whom I have profound respect. To-day, I agree with his speech in parts. He said that he deplored this Debate on the Adjournment, that it was more or less of a scrappy Debate, and that this question ought to have been thoroughly thrashed out by the House and a Division taken at the end. I entirely agree with him. But how has this position come about? It has arisen because of the insistence of the Labour party on having this Debate to-day against the better judgment of those who know the situation far better than the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and those who sit behind him.

Mr. Ammon: That is not correct. Again and again it was stressed from this side of the House that a day should be given for the Debate and we were forced into this situation.

Sir S. Reed: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Wakefield gave his reasons for pressing for this Debate on the Adjournment against the wishes of


many of those who understand the difficulties and realise the very grave dangers in the whispering gallery of the East of hasty and ill-considered expressions from different parts of the House.

Mr. Ammon: I was pointing out that antecedent to what my right hon. Friend said, there had been attempts to get a Debate earlier.

Sir S. Cripps: I think we had better not have any trouble about this. It is quite true that hon. Members opposite wanted to have a formal Debate on the subject, and it is true that hon. Members on this side wanted to have a formal Debate on the basis of the Motion. The Government took the view that it would be better to postpone it until a little later, but at the request of hon. Members, after that former decision had been taken, we intimated that it could be done to-day. We have done our best in the circumstances to try to accommodate both sides. I hope no hon. Gentleman will accuse anybody in any part of the House of any of the inconveniences for which I take full responsibility.

Sir S. Reed: I do not think there is any difference of opinion. I am concerned with the circumstances in which the Debate has arisen. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton that it is unfortunate, mistimed and may be calculated to do much more harm than good. I have another reason for pressing that point of view. It is this. The hon. Member has spoken rather on the spur of the moment on an immensely complicated subject. I want to assure him that if he had had time to refresh his memory and look back into the history of these events, he would never have made the speech which he has made

Mr. Maxton: I have been reflecting on this matter for some 37 years. Since I have been a Member of Parliament it has never been absent for more than a few weeks from the Debates and Questions in the House. If I have failed in my presentation of the case in this Debate, it is not through lack of time for preparation.

Sir S. Reed: To take one instance from the speech to which we have just listened, the hon. Member said there was no reason why the Provincial Governments in what he called—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1942.

INDIA (SITUATION)

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Sir S. Reed: I was venturing to suggest, as an instance of our unreadiness for this Debate, that if the hon. Member for Bridgeton had had time to refresh his memory by a study of the relevant facts, he would not have made the speech he made to-day. He said he had pondered over this question for 37 years. I have pondered over this question for 45 years and for 40 of those 45 years I have been a convinced and unrepentant advocate of Home Rule for India. As an instance to show how a Member of transparent sincerity can lead this House hopelessly astray, why not, he asked, call together and bring into functioning operation the Provincial Governments where there are Congress majorities? Why are these Governments not functioning today? They were constituted under the 1935 Act. They were working with the full responsibility of Ministers drawn from a legislative body elected on a wide franchise. Many of them were doing excellent work. Why are they not functioning to-day? Because they were called cut by the caucus which calls itself the All-India Congress Committee. Those Governments were responsible to the legislative body. They never consulted it. They were responsible to the electorate. They never consulted it. They threw up office in obedience to the orders of a junta. If that is democracy, then the word "democracy" has a meaning in India which is totally different from its implication in any other part of the world. Now this episode illustrates a point which I have made to my Indian friends many times but on which they do not altogether agree with me. They very often talk in terms of democracy, when they mean by that a transferred autocracy, and that is the issue that is raised in this case.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton, I am sure, quite sincerely put a sinister interpretation on the date when the Government of India took action against the civil disobedience movement. Does he not see that the Government of India must have known not only what was in contemplation, but what was being planned when they came in possession of the secret documents found at the headquarters of the Congress Committee? What were the Government of India to do? Where they to stand and gaze whilst the revolutionary forces deliberately matured their plans and completed their preparations? Were they, responsible for the peace and order of 388,000,000 people, to remain quiescent, knowing that civil disobedience had always produced, as it had in recent weeks produced, attacks on Indians and burning of property? We are told that members of the Congress Committee never really intended these results to happen and did not organise them. What has been the history of the civil disobedience movement for 15 years whenever it was attempted? What is the history of Malegaon, of Sholapur where arson was rampant and policemen were burnt to death? What is the history of a dozen, if not more, centres of civil disobedience in the past? It is one of attacks on Indian life and Indian property. It is one of attacks on Indian officers and Indian interests far more than on English officers or English interests. Those who fomented civil disobedience did so therefore with full knowledge that, as certain as night follows day, the tragic outrages which have followed the movement in the last fortnight were bound to happen, because they had the whole teachings of experience and history for the last 15 years since this fatal conception—that you can have civil disobedience without disorder—was advanced.
I share the hon. Member's point of view that these things were not deliberately contemplated by the leaders of the Congress Movement, but, if he consults the pages of Hansard he will find that 30 years or so ago one who was neither a sun-dried bureaucrat, nor a case-hardened Imperialist warned this House what those responsible for peace and order in India must do in such an emergency. It was Lord Morley who said, "If I see a man preparing to set the prairie on fire, am I not to take the match from his hand?" The Government

of India saw these men preparing to set the prairie on fire, and they had no option, in the discharge of their supreme responsiblity, but to use every instrument they could to prevent this revolutionary movement gathering force at a time like the present when India stands in such very fearful peril from the enemy who is at her gates. The hon. Member developed the theory dear to my own heart, that we should always keep before us the goal of complete freedom and independence for India as the crown and glory of our work. But what is the actual case to-day? It is not a question of a gleam of light nor a chink in the door; it is the door standing wide open ready for India to walk through it the moment her publicists can make up their minds as to the actual conditions of Government which are to be set up.
The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), in a speech whose clarity I cannot equal, but which I will try to imitate, spoke of the magnitude of the offer which the Lord Privy Seal took to India. The only slight alteration that I would make in his presentation of the case is this: He spoke as if this House was then embarking on a new orientation in our policy. No; that orientation of our policy flowed from 7th August, 1917, when the Government of the day for the first time defined the goal of our policy in India as increasing responsibility and the association of Indians in the government leading inevitably to Dominion status. The crucial word "responsibility" was approved by George Nathaniel Curzon. It is painfully true, as the hon. Member said, that a large proportion of people in this country and in the United States—I will go further and say a large number of Members of this House—do not realise the magnitude of the offer which the Lord Privy Seal took to India. The Act of 1935 was one of the greatest renunciations of power in history. I do not think anyone could produce a parallel instance of a Government conscious of its power to administer wisely and well offering so great a devolution of authority to the people of the country concerned. The right hon. Gentleman took to India something far more pregnant than that. How many know exactly the meaning of his message?
The object is the creation of a new Indian Union, which shall constitute a Dominion, associated with the United Kingdom and the


other Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown, but equal to them in every respect, and in no way subordinate in any aspect of its domestic or external affairs.
It was in effect the offer of complete independence within the Commonwealth, we all hoped, outside the Commonwealth, for there was the right of secession if India so preferred that. The offer went far beyond that. It carried complete machinery for the expression of this policy the moment the war was over and we could sit down and thrash out the details. I do not believe more than a fraction of the people of this country realises, and I know there is quite a considerable body of opinion in the House which does not to-day realise the tremendous magnitude and completeness of the offer so put forward and with the utmost patience and the utmost knowledge, yet it was rejected. Why? Now if this had simply been a question of a definition of the powers of the Indian Minister of Defence, I personally would have gone beyond what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to offer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not, could not and dare not agree to the proposition that in the most critical stage of the war the whole responsibility for the Government of India should forthwith pass over to a non-existent organisation, to a body which was at a later stage to be created, its machinery undefined, its powers undetermined in a form totally nebulous and without any concrete existence whatever. So far therefore from demanding even a chink in the door to responsible Government in India, the door is wide open for India to enter any day, but the responsibility rests with her. India, and India alone, has to make up her mind to pass through that door to the freedom and substantial independence which my hon. Friend and I regard as the crown and glory of our connection with the land
Now we have to deal with the immediate present. We have to deal with a movement which is openly revolutionary. There is no disguising that. The movement is led by Mr. Gandhi, armed with dictatorial powers by the Congress Committee, and Mr. Gandhi has said clearly and distinctly that his probable purpose was the moment power was secured to open negotiations with Japan, after which he was prepared to go to Japan and ask the Japanese to be kind to the Chinese

people! Kind to the Chinese people after the massacre of Nanking! Kind to the Chinese people after five years of brutal and bloody aggression! Can anybody in this House, speaking with a sense of responsibility, suggest for a moment that that was a plan of campaign in which the Government of India can meet in any way but by using all the resources within their power to prevent this devastating revolutionary movement from spreading? We sometimes speak of British interests in India, and sometimes it is thought that in taking preventive action we are protecting British interests. That is not so. For every British interest that is affected in India 1,000 Indian interests are affected. For every British life in danger 1,000 or 10,000 Indian lives are in danger.
It is our clear responsibility to India and to 388,000,000 Indians to secure by every means in our power that the slender crust between law and order is not penetrated. Many Members, looking with apprehension upon these apparently drastic measures for the maintenance of law and order, do not appreciate one basic fact. If we go over the border-line in this country, with our high sense of discipline and our traditions, it may mean at worst a police baton charge and a few broken heads. I do not believe there has been a more serious operation to maintain law and order in this country than a police charge since Featherstone riots many, many years ago. What is the case in India and the East? The ordinary Indian people are so peaceful and law-abiding that quite a small and not ultra efficient police force is sufficient to maintain law and order, but once the borderline is crossed, what does it mean? It is not a broken head or a baton charge; it is murder, arson and very often rape. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton that if he were, as I have been more than a score of times, called out in support of the civil power in order to prevent breaches of the peace, he would see how in the twinkling of an eye a crowd can pass from comparative placidity to arson and murder. He would realise what a tremendous responsibility is laid on the Government of India at a time like this to defend the lives, property and security of those myriads. I am sure that he would, and I am sure that he will if the Debate is resumed, express profound admiration and sympathy for


those who are shouldering this task at the present time and bearing the burden of this responsibility—for the Viceroy in his overworked isolation; for his 15 colleagues in the Council, 11 of whom are Indians, drawn from the very salt of her public life and who are approving and supporting this policy; for the Indian civil servants and the police.
I should like some of those who are very glib in their condemnation of Indian policy and the Indian Government to place themselves in the position of a district magistrate at a time of difficulty like the present. He is often hundreds of miles from any form of assistance; has the responsibility of the district on his shoulders with not a highly efficient armed support behind him. More than half of the district magistrates are Indians drawn from the Indian Civil Service, and they deserve our heartfelt sympathy and support in their duties at this time. I would go further and more than endorse those words which the Prime Minister spoke about the gallantry and courage of the Indian police. We have a high regard for our own police and have a high appreciation of the part they play in the preservation of our own law and order in our own land, but they do not run one tithe of the risk of the Indian police. They run little or no risk in this country of murder by an overwhelming mob. In the face of that risk the Indian police to-day are doing their duty with a calm resolution and courage which demands and should obtain from this House its whole-hearted sympathy, admiration and support.
These are hard and bitter days for many people. They are hard and bitter days for those who have worked and lived in India; who have friends up and down the country in every section of society; who have received the warm-hearted and generous friendship of so many of the Indian people; and who have looked forward so confidently and so hopefully to the development of the land they Jove to her full status. They have viewed with much dismay the approach of war to her borders in circumstances which cause us no small heart-burnings, To see energies turned to the inevitable and necessary suppression of revolution at a time like this is a hard and bitter thing. Some of us feel very acutely that all we have lived for, all we have striven for is now in the melting pot. But that must not close our

eyes to the plainest facts, The Government of India now is in this limited field faced by a definitely revolutionary movement, directed against the existence of the Government which is responsible for the peace and order of the Indian people, and for their defence against an enemy so ruthless that those in Burma who were at first prone to acquiesce in the arrival of the Japanese are now refugees in India from harshness and brutality.
From this responsibility we dare not resile. From the Indians who are facing this responsibility we dare not withdraw our support, sympathy and generous appreciation. Nevertheless even in these circumstances we must not and will not abandon our determination to seize every opportunity so soon as Congress abandons civil disobedience, and drops the pistol which it is holding at the heads of the Government, the Moslems and Other great bodies in the population, to complete our work and will welcome with open arms without any arrière pensée, without any reservation, any opportunity to heal the breach now open and press on with the task we are in. May I therefore express the ardent hope that from these trials and troubles a glorious state of full Dominion status, or independence, whichever she prefers, will finally emerge, a consummation which will set the seal to our victory in the field.

Mr. Sorensen: I am sure that whether or not we agree entirely with all that was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), we do appreciate his approach to this difficult problem, and cannot help noting the contrast between his mood and the mood of the Prime Minister yesterday. It was also interesting to note the emphasis in his speech more than once on the fact that we have now offered not merely Dominion status but independence to India. Let that be put on record, for whether we agree or disagree with the Indian National Congress and with other bodies who have the same aspirations, it is well for us now to realise that apparently by common consent we have offered to India independence. We cannot therefore blame Indian politicians for asking how that principle of independence can be implemented. I am sure, too, that all of us here agree with the hon. Member in his condemnation of cruelties and atrocities in India. We deplore them. We trust indeed that fewer of them will occur,


and that in the course of the great struggle there will be an increasing appreciation of the fact that human life above all things should be the first consideration. But I would point out that the criticism of events in India made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and by other speakers could have been applied to the cataclysmic events that precipitated the American War of Independence, and also to the events in Ireland that culminated in the virtual independence in Ireland.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I point out that the American War of Independence arose out of the Boston tea party, which was related to the right of taxation, and that India has had complete control over her fiscal system for 20 years?

Mr. Sorensen: Everybody knows about the Boston tea party, but that was the occasion and not the actual cause of the events. In any case my point was that, unfortunately, in every emergence of a new nation there are these deplorable associations. That was my point. Not that I condone them or support them; I was simply stating a fact. Therefore, we must go more deeply than merely looking at the surface of the great oceanic events taking place at the present time. I agree with the spirit of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) in its appeal for conciliation, but I must express my very great regret that he did not direct his appeal towards the Prime Minister, for who can deny that the Prime Minister's speech yesterday was hardly a conciliatory one? I venture to suggest, indeed, that it was provocative, and I will go further, if it is not too uncharitable, and suggest that it was meant to be provocative. It is certainly provoking me very seriously indeed, provoking me to suggest that in his speech one heard more than an echo of that rather blindly arrogant opposition current at the time of the great Debates on the Government of India Bill in 1935. One thought that the right hon. Gentleman was still living within the shadow of that "naked Indian fakir" to whom he referred some years ago, and that he had failed to understand Gandhi, Nehru and those other figures who, whether we agree with them or not, represent a new world movement deserving far greater appreciation than was evident

in the unfortunate speech of the Prime Minister yesterday.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: I have read and reread the Prime Minister's speech, and I would ask the hon. Member where he can point to even one sentence which can be described as provocative. It would be a help to me if he could do so.

Mr. Sorensen: I was coming to that. If the hon. and gallant Member had possessed his soul in patience, he would have found that I was coming to it systematically. I will say, first of all, that the Prime Minister got most of his facts wrong. Either he knew those facts were wrong, which I hardly like to suggest, or he showed himself appallingly ignorant, and in that respect alone I believe and contend that he was provocative: Let me give one or two instances. He said, "Congress does not represent India." What does he mean by that? Does he mean that Congress is an insignificant body having no support at all? If he does not mean that, what does he mean? No one suggests that Congress represents everyone in India, any more than anyone suggests that the Prime Minister represents everyone in England.

Sir Henry Fildes: Does it represent the majority?

Mr. Sorensen: If we are to judge by the registered membership of Congress, which in pre-war days was about 5,000,000, I understand, and which it is said has now sunk to 1,500,000, it might appear at first that it represents a fraction of the total population of India; but I should like to know what is the numerical membership of the Conservative party and whether we are to take that as a guide to the contention of most of its Members in this House that they represent this country? I would apply the same principle to my own party. The individual membership of my own party is incommensurate with the very large number of people who are supporting it in the country. The only way in which one can test the strength of the Congress party is to turn up election results. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has already pointed out that when the last Provincial elections took place Congress won substantial majorities in seven out of the 11 Provincial Governments and secured a pro-Congress


majority in the eighth, and a number of others who are not recognised to be Congress representatives nevertheless agree, on the whole, with the Congress Party and Congress aims.

Sir H. Williams: Does the Congress Party represent the members of the depressed classes, who are not allowed to drink water out of the same wells that the Working Committee of Congress drink from?

Mr. Sorensen: That point was also in my mind, and the eagerness of the hon. Gentleman for information will be satisfied before I finish. Meanwhile, let me take one other provocative point. The statement was deliberately made yesterday by the Prime Minister that Congress is really dominated and financed by certain manufacturing and financial interests. He said:
The Indian Congress Party does not represent all India. It does not represent the majority of the people of India. It does not even represent the Hindu masses. It is a political organisation built around a party machine and sustained by certain manufacturing and financial interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; col. 302, Vol. 383.]
What audacity on the part of the Prime Minister, as the leader not only of this House but of the Conservative Party, to mention domination by commercial and financial interests. No wonder that hon. Members behind him who had been cheering him up to then suddenly became silent, because they began to realise—

Dr. Russell Thomas: The hon. Member talked about the Prime Minister, but may I remind him that the Prime Minister also said:
I can do so by saying that up to a very late hour last night my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I were at work on the actual words of this statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; col. 307, Vol. 383.]
That statement shows that the hon. Gentleman's leader approved the statement of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Sorensen: All I can say is that it disturbs some Members of the Front Bench even more than I had assumed. I will leave it to their very troubled souls. I am sure their souls are troubled, but I will not disturb them any further. I will not rub salt into their wounds. It is audacity on the part of the Prime Minister

to twit the Congress Party with having wealthy men in its ranks. Hon. Members opposite want it both ways; they want to criticise the Congress Party with being representative of large numbers of illiterate Indians and at the same time to criticise the party because wealthy members subscribe to its funds.
What criticism has been offered of the Princes, those hardy democratic gentlemen who are more the equivalent in some respects of certain despots in Europe whom we are trying to overthrow? What is being said about those millionaires, who, from time to time, heavily support in this country the national war effort or, on the other hand, causes which are hostile to Congress and all that Congress represents? It seems to me verging almost upon the hypocritical to suggest that because there may be wealthy merchants supporting the Congress Party, the Congress Party should therefore be condemned, while the wealthy Princes who support contrary movements are applauded and taken as models of all that an Indian should be.
Still further, it is suggested that the Moslems are opposed to the Indian Congress. The Prime Minister should have known, and probably did know, when he stated that 90,000,000 Moslems were opposed to Congress, that that again was completely misleading. When members of this House or of the Government make such a statement over the wireless or in other ways leave such an impression, they are again deliberately misleading the general public. The facts are these: Of the four Moslem Provinces, one, the North-West Province of India, is overwhelmingly pro-Congress, the present President of Congress is a great Moslem scholar; there are large communities like the Momins, who, whether they number 45,000,000 as they contend, or only 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 as the Secretary of State for India contends, at least represent another large section. Beyond all that, the final factor to be considered is that out of the total number of votes cast for the Moslem seats and reserved for Moslems in India, only 4.6 were for members of the Moslem League. Those facts should be known by the Prime Minister. If they are not, they ought to be known to him, and he would not have made a misleading, provocative and tendentious speech of that character if he had fortified himself with the facts.
Reference was made just now by an evasive hon. Gentleman to the depressed classes in India. What is the fact about them? There is an energetic man representing a section of the scheduled classes, but he cannot be identified with all the depressed classes. There are representatives of the depressed classes in the Indian National Congress. Let us face facts again: the number of seats reserved for the depressed classes was 151. Dr. Ambedkar's organisation secured only 13, and of the total number of votes—

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: If all those populations support Congress in such large measure as the hon. Gentleman makes out, why cannot they come to some agreement on the situation?

Mr. Sorensen: There are differences of opinion in India as there are here, but those parties all agree upon independence for India. When we get shaken up one day into our respective groups again, we shall be surprised at the underlying differences there are in this House. I notice in to-day's Debate a considerable difference of outlook and approach between the hon. Gentleman who sits for Aylesbury and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), There are those differences of opinion, but there are other groups besides Congress who all agree on the same purpose. That being so, I am persuaded that Congress will be able to make an accommodation with them which will secure their support.

Miss Rathbone: rose—

Mr. Sorensen: Apparently I am being assailed from right and left. I did not know the hon. Lady who is sitting on my left had appeared as an ardent anti-Congress supporter. It is misleading and unfair to suggest that the depressed classes of 50,000,000 or 60,000,000, whatever it might be, opposed Congress. I ask for nothing more than that it should be realised that while a section of the depressed classes was separately organised, for the most part the depressed classes are either in Congress or are supporters of Congress. The facts are contained in the figures which anyone can find out for himself, and if those facts mean anything at all, they mean that whether or not a majority of the depressed classes support the organisation

led by Dr. Ambedkar, at least they support Congress and its purpose. There are many other points of a provocative nature which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, but I will not discuss them to-day.

Captain Nicholson: Why not?

Mr. Sorensen: I do not mind doing so, but it may be unfair to other hon. Members who want to speak. So, although there are several other matters, I will content myself by not responding to those provocative statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave them, but I would only say that when it is suggested that the Congress movement is pro-Japanese and is a fifth column movement, such statements are a travesty of the facts. One may or may not agree with Mr. Gandhi's views on non-violence, but at least the Lord Privy Seal could assure the House, if he were to speak, that the motive in Mr. Gandhi's mind was not that of condoning Fascist or Japanese aggression. Rightly or wrongly, not merely regarding the Japanese but regarding the rest of the world, Gandhi, as a minority influence in Congress, believes in non-violence. I deplore, with the rest of my hon. Friends, I hope, the attempt to try and mislead the world by publishing some two weeks ago that a raid made on the. Congress office disclosed sinister notes of private conversations. These were suddenly displayed to the world as if they were the final decisions of the Congress movement. What happened was that Gandhi himself proposed to the Working Committee a certain course of action regarding Japanese aggression, and the Working Committee of the Congress turned it down. That did not matter. It was sufficient to take these documents and publish them to the world and leave the impression that the Congress movement was pro-Japanese.

Sir S. Reed: Would the hon. Member like me to read that document?

Mr. Sorensen: If there were time.

Sir S. Reed: I think it would give him a painful shock if I did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]

Mr. Sorensen: May I assure hon. Members that I am quite prepared to discuss the matter objectively. If I do not give way, it is not because I am afraid of any disclosure, but because I am looking at


the clock, and I realise that other Members wish to speak. I wish to abbreviate my remarks and assure Members it is not discourtesy on my part or any indication of paucity of material. I must add that I am trying to explain, as I understand it, the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and the actual facts of the situation. Be that as it may, I leave it there in the hope that we shall not think it right to publish documents to the world without giving their full context. I am sure that if I could burgle the archives of the Cabinet, I should discover minutes of discussions that have taken place in recent weeks and that I should be able, by the careful selection of text without context to publish some very impressive revelations, but I do not intend even to try.
I hope I have said enough to suggest that Congress is not the impotent body that some people make out. Equally, I hope I have made it clear that I do not personally pretend to be identified with Congress. I am a British citizen, and because I am British I deplore the present circumstances in India, and I would that they were otherwise. Because I am British I do not want to see my country in difficulties. But the Indians are not British, and because they are not they approach this matter in a very different way from ourselves, which is what we should appreciate. If we did, we might be less prone to lecture Indians, even as we ourselves would resent the Indians lecturing us as to the best way to pursue our own policy in this country. It is one of those difficult problems in world history when two apparent rights clash. As a British person I deplore the circumstances and wish they had been otherwise, but they are not otherwise. I presume that many British people at the time of the American war of independance would have had circumstances other than they were. But there they were, and we have to face these facts.
That is why I say that we must realise that what is happening now is something far more than the agitation of a few politicians. It is a world upheaval, something in the soul of man is stirring, great masses of the Indian people are on the march, as they were in Russia after the last war, as they are in China, as they were in Turkey. In the process of that march many deplorable things take place,

and many mistakes are made, but if we have eyes that are more than purely nationalist, if we have eyes that can see the race as a whole, can look back on the long story of mankind and pierce beneath its travail and tribulation, then we shall realise that the present war is only one aspect of the eruption now taking place. When victory comes it will not be the beginning of the new world, but merely an incident in the demolition of the old. In the demolition of that old world, Imperialism will undoubtedly crumble. That is why I understand the vigour and the vehemence of so many hon. Members on the other side of the House in supporting the Prime Minister. They see the passing of their world, they are earnest and sincere about it I know, and their apprehension is genuine, but I do not share their apprehension. Quite frankly, for me Imperialism, though it may have fulfilled a purpose, is not only going but must go, because it contains within itself the idea of domination by one race over another. Whether that domination happens to be within the confines of the British Empire or elsewhere, I know it will not last. Some time it will pass away, and all we can do meanwhile is to do our best to see that the transition is as painless and speedly as it possibly can be.
Reference has been made to the outrages that have taken place, such as the burning of policemen, which I deplore more than words can tell. But on the other hand, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for India why, in the Dacca Prison ten days ago 34 security prisoners were killed and 137 were wounded? Can he tell me why in the Bhagalpur prison 28 were killed and 100 wounded, and why in Allahabad prison others were killed and wounded, of which I do not possess the exact figures? Surely this must reveal something very wrong, and very distubing to all who are here, and surely also it should remind us that, tragic as is the death of an Indian policeman, it is equally tragic when security and other prisoners are also slain, whatever may be the actual cause thereof? I would further like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who may reply before the Debate is finished, whether he has given any word of encouragement to non-Congress representatives, to Sir Tej Sapru, to Joshi, the leader of the Trade Union Congress of India and Burma, to Rajagopalachariar and to such men as the


president of the Indian Chamber of Commerce of Madras, who only a few days ago was appealing to the Government to resume negotiations? If he is going to ignore those who axe now languishing in prison, surely at least he should consider the position of those who may be hostile to Congress in some measure, or who stand apart from Congress but who also demand independence and self-government and who are looking for some response. I would bid him at least consider the significance of their concern and thus make for good-will and co-operation if not now then in the future.
I would add a word concerning the unfortunate whipping order recently re-instituted. I know that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said that as yet it had not been applied, and that in any case it would only be applied to those guilty of robbery with violence, arson and so forth. On the other hand the re-introduction of this order has not been without a purpose; it will be applied, no doubt, in course of time. I hope not, but it may be. I ask him, what should we have said in this country, during the 1926 coal lock-out, if a whipping order had been instituted which stated that if any of the miners or railwaymen or others had been guilty of rioting they would be flogged or whipped by order of the British Government? There would have been an outcry on the part of hon. Members of this House, who although they wanted restraint of criminality nevertheless also wanted to avoid that spiritual deterioration which the infliction of flogging inevitably involves. I would therefore ask him to reconsider the whole question of the whipping order, to see whether after all it is really necessary to adopt this degrading method of punishment and whether, if in this country we have not introduced whipping as a penalty in times of civil or industrial strife, he could not at least apply in India the same criterion regarding penalties.
I hope that what I have said to-day, though it may itself have been provocative, will be accepted as mainly an attempt to reply to the surely unnecessary and bleak provocative statement by the Prime Minister yesterday. But above that I can assure the House that as far as I am concerned my chief desire is to nourish the new spirit arising in India

and in this country out of the turmoil of to-day and which will enable our country and India in the end to five together in free co-operation, social justice and good will. I believe that the Indians on the whole want that to happen; I believe that the Indian peoples have no intense dislike or hatred of us although they resent exploitation. Many of their leaders and others have been to this country, they know us personally, as I know them personally, although I have never had the fortune or the money to go to India myself. Therefore, at this time, when a head-on collision seems to be inevitable, at least we can appreciate, above the tragic battle and strife, that the mass of Indian people, not only Nehru, Gandhi and Azad, as well as Jinnah and others, for that matter, but the Indian masses, do not want to live in a world in which they are hostile to the British people. They know the British people are human beings, very much like human beings elsewhere, with much the same basic needs, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to exasperate Indian opinion but, while taking what measures he from his standpoint feels necessary for the securing of order, the maintenance of law and the restriction of violence, yet above all to appreciate that the men who are trying to guide Indian hopes and aspirations are men at least as earnest as he is himself, and who have as high a patriotism regarding their own country as he has regarding Britain. If we can appreciate that, though we may suffer much in this tragic episode in the world's history before it is finished, we shall at last find in the end the best in both countries rising out of the turmoil and uniting for the re-creation of a new world, in which a free India and a free Britain will take foremost place.

Mr. Ammon: The last two very eloquent and sincere speeches by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) and the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), differing as they do somewhat in their expression, do indicate nevertheless a genuine desire on the part of a large number of Members of this House on both sides that India may be free to order her own destiny. There is some comfort in the knowledge that hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for West Leyton, although they may approach it from different angles, are equally sincere


in their endeavours, and are striving to work out some method of approach. References have been made on one or two occasions to the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister. For my part, whatever might be the intrinsic merits of the statement and the actual language used—and other Members on all sides of the House have expressed it—it was the manner of its expression, its truculent, swashbuckling "damn-your-eyes" sort of thing which took us back to the Debates on the old India Bill. It was, to say the least, unfortunate, apart altogether from the merits of this speech, which have been analysed by my hon. Friend who has just spoken and I am bound to say rather borne out by the very tepid commendation in "The Times" leading article today. They point out quite reasonably that while it might be true, as the Prime Minister said, that Congress does not represent the majority of the people of India, that while they cannot be in a position to arrive at a settlement, nevertheless it will be impossible to arrive at a settlement without the consent and assistance of the Congress Party.
We have to find, if we can, a via media whereby India can be brought together in order to arrive at some measure of agreement. After all, though Congress, as is said, does not represent the majority of Indians, it is as well to remember that 89 per cent. of the population of India are peasants in the villages, having no concern with the larger political parties, and it is to satisfy them and in order that a larger measure of freedom might be brought to them which is our principal concern. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton in his concluding remarks touched upon the particular point to which I wish to refer. I suppose that no missionary ever went out from this country with higher hopes and with more fervent prayers for the success of his mission than was the case when the Lord Privy Seal went to India, and there was no greater sorrow than when he came back in April not having succeeded as we had hoped he might do.
It seems to me that since then the policy of the Government has been rather as though they had got sulky simply because they did not achieve all they wanted. They have made up their minds that nothing more shall be done to bridge this gulf, to break down this impasse, in order that there may be some

other approach to the problem. Many attempts have been made by independent men in India itself, such as Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Rajagopalachariar and others who have made endeavours in order to bring together Congress and the other parties to arrive at a decision. The Government have done nothing whatever in order to encourage, assist and help these people. Why have they not? After all, is not a little loss of face worth while if that is necessary? Is it not worth while making some little concessions to bring these parties together and bring the question to a satisfactory conclusion with such great issues at stake?
Turning to the war considerations, of course it is impossible to do as Mr. Gandhi suggests, hope to hold off the Japanese by conversation, reason and argument. In the face of what has happened in Formosa, Korea and in China itself, that is impossible. We accept all that. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party has said, the Labour party have admitted that under present circumstances the Government could have taken no other action than they did take at that moment. That does not mean that we should not endeavour to use every possible means in order that we might have another and fresh approach to see whether some reasonable agreement cannot be arrived at. With the leaders of a great party in prison, with their Press suppressed and no longer allowed to be issued, can there be any hope? If we are to rely on that sort of thing, we cannot possibly get any agreement whatever. We must try, if we can, to push the door wider by some other means. The Prime Minister said yesterday that more than 140,000 new volunteers for the Army had come forward since this approach had been made. Really, to talk about 140,000 out of 400,000,000 is infinitesimal and rather absurd. One wonders that the Prime Minister would dare to mention such a figure. A little while ago, in a former Debate, the Secretary of State said that about 1,500,000 Indians had enlisted. That number has been challenged very seriously since then. Suppose it were true, 1,500,000 out of 400,000,000 does not sound as though there is very great burning enthusiasm for the British cause, and that there is a rallying to the standard in the manner we would hope.
In spite of all that, I believe that basically the Indian people are loyal and desirous of remaining more or less in touch with this nation, and that somehow or other we have missed, and are still missing, the opportunity to bring them along the right lines. We have the knack somewhow of always doing the right thing in the wrong way in a manner that alienates rather than brings people to our support. Again and again we have pleaded here that we might set up means of providing the manufacture of munitions and arms in India in order that India might be a great arsenal of democracy. It took a long time to get that done. Again and again for a year or two I urged that certain people be permitted to set up factories there for the manufacture of certain vehicles. That is now being done under American finance and influence. It is rather a pity we could not have encouraged and helped those people rather than, as we have, allowed vested interests from Europe to have more or less moulded the industrial development of India. Every day in the present crisis we are now paying for that.
It is worth while that we have had what I might term this exploratory Debate to-day. I think every one of us, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, if we might judge by his manner, desires that we should help India to a measure of freedom as soon as possible. We regret very much that she has not been able to see her way to fall into line with us at the present time. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman not to be too sticky and stand on his dignity by taking up the position that "There is our offer. We make no more. When you like to come and say, 'We will sit around with you,' we will listen to you." Surely we might give more encouragement than we have done to those prominent Indians, some of whom have often risked their position and standing among their compatriots out there to find some way in which they might be brought together to find a settlement. It is on that point alone I beg the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get up in his usual dry manner and say that we have done all we can and it is up to them to come again as and when they will. Rather I urge him to say that we shall give all the support we can to those who have any influence and any desire to

break down subversive elements in order that we might arrive at a measure of agreement and try to settle this thing at a time when it is so essential that those who love freedom of liberty, thought and expression should be united in the great struggle in which the world is now involved.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I think most of us can agree with the remark which fell just now from the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), to the effect that this exploratory Debate has been worth while. If there is one thing, a relatively small matter, which I would deprecate, it is the somewhat heavy weather which the hon. Member and even my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his thoughtful and most helpful speech, indulged in, in their criticism of the Prime Minister's statement, as being in some sense provocative, truculent, not helpful, shocking to millions, as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said yesterday. Let us really look at that statement, and ask, where does the justification for those comments come in? The statement began by putting in the very forefront the basic policy on which the whole of this House is agreed, and which has won the approval of the whole world: the policy, if I may quote the language of my right hon. Friend, by which India's destiny is to be determined at the end of hostilities by Indians themselves. He added, very truly, that "never in human history has such an offer been made."
The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), in what certainly struck me as a most statesmanlike speech, laid emphasis upon the desirability of that admirable declaration being made as prominently public as possible. I and my right hon. Friend here and others have endeavoured to emphasise the implications of that statement everywhere that our voices have reached. At any rate, the Prime Minister put it in the forefront of his statement yesterday. What is provocative in that? The Prime Minister followed up that by certain figures, drawn from that entirely unprovocative source, the interim report for 1941 on the Census of India, to show that the Congress could not claim to command a majority of all India.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Who compiled that report?

Mr. Amery: The census authorities. It is a quite unprovocative, and certainly not a partisan, report. The Prime Minister, perfectly legitimately, used those figures as indicating broadly the attitude of the main elements of the community in India. It is perfectly true that at elections held some six years ago a considerable number of Moslems voted with Congress. After experience of Congress Governments, in the following years the whole position of the Moslem communities changed entirely. There are members of the Depressed Classes with the Congress party. But there are Hindus in other parties; and I venture to say that the proportion of Moslems and of the Depressed Classes who are with Congress is smaller than the proportion of Hindus who are with Mahasabha and other parties, who are not with Congress, and who deplore Congress policy at the present moment. Those figures gave a broad picture, and a true picture, which, no doubt, has come as a surprise to many people, not only in this country but in the United States. They were well worth quoting in order to refute the claim so persistently put forward that Congress is India, that to give to Congress what the Congress party demands is giving to India what she demands. The whole problem is that India contains many elements, among which Congress is not even a clear majority, which are not agreed as to what India demands.
What else was in the statement? Was the Prime Minister's account of what took place, of the actual disturbances, inaccurate? I could draw a much more lurid picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), very rightly, from his experience, said what a breakdown of law and order in India could mean, and what it has been meaning in the last month. There was no exaggeration in the Prime Minister's statement on that. Was it provocative to pay a tribute to the Executive Government in India, or to the Civil Service, or to that admirable body of brave men of the Indian police, or to the valour of the Indian troops, or their loyalty. I am glad that yesterday a Member who has just come back from the Middle East paid his tribute to the Indian troops. I am glad to see among us as a representative of India in the War Cabinet an

Indian Prince who in his time served in an Indian regiment, the Rajputana Rifles, which have had an unequalled record for gallantry in this war.
We are told that it was not the facts themselves, it was the tone—so truculent, so swashbuckling, so provocative. Does this House really expect the Prime Minister, at a moment when not only India alone but our whole position in the Middle East, our loyal Ally China, the whole Allied cause, has been saved from peril by the successfully firm attitude of the Government of India, to exchange that ringing confident note which has so often sustained this House in dark hours for a muffled apology in a minor key? I venture to say that even the hon. Member for Seaham, if he had been through what His Majesty's Government and the Government of India have been through in the last weeks, and had emerged successfully, might have allowed some ray of tempered satisfaction to penetrate the querulous gloom that usually hangs over his speeches.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about me? I thought it must be somebody else.

Mr. Amery: If I may turn from this minor storm which has blown over the alleged tone of the Prime Minister to the real storm which is blowing in the world—

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman has attacked me, quite unnecessarily—for I am a most unoffending victim of his attack—might I ask him, since he is now defending the tone, apart from the substance, of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, whether the tone and substance were approved by every Member of the War Cabinet?

Mr. Amery: You cannot prescribe a tone. I was simply trying to contrast the natural tone with which the Prime Minister has so often sustained this House and the somewhat different tone which the hon. Member has so often used.

Mr. Shinwell: I am simply asking a question. The right hon. Gentleman should not twist it round.

Mr. Amery: There was a clear answer by the Prime Minister yesterday to the same challenge.

Mr. Shinwell: It was not approved, and you know it was not.

Mr. Amery: The Prime Minister has answered for himself. If I may turn to the real storm which is blowing through the world to-day, to the danger through which India is passing, to the danger through which the whole cause of freedom is passing, I suggest that we must judge the action of Congress and the action of the Government of India in the light of that situation, and primarily and mainly in the light of that situation.
I may have to say something in a moment about the political motives underlying the action of Congress, but I would like the House, first of all, to put that question entirely on one side and, judging simply by the issue of our existence in this war, to ask, What was the duty of the Government of India when it was confronted by the situation which did confront it during the summer months of the present year? Very soon after my right hon. Friend left India it became clear that under Mr. Gandhi's inspiration Congress was steadily swinging towards a policy of direct defiance aimed at the paralysis of the existing Government of India. We have had experience of some of these movements before but Mr. Gandhi made it clear that this was going to be something more serious than any of his previous movements. He said in July:
This will be the bitterest struggle in my life.
He spoke of it as a struggle to be made as short and swift as possible. He is reported by his secretary Desai in June as saying:
My attitude has undergone a change. I cannot afford to wait. I must, even at certain obvious risks, ask people to resist slavery.
Similarly, Mr. Prasad said,
In this last decisive struggle by Mr. Gandhi for national independence, they might have to face bombs, bullets and shells.
Does this look a purely non-violent movement? Indeed, I may point out that when, on 10th July, the Congress Working Committee issued a resolution urging the people of India to resist the ordinary compensated requisitioning of boats or vehicles or lands, Mr. Gandhi added as to the method of resistance:
No doubt the non-violent way is always the best, but where that does not come naturally "—
it does not always come naturally to most people—
the violent way is both necessary and honourable, and inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly.

Increasing information was coming in all the time as to the nature of the movement.

Mr. Maxton: I did not quite gather whether that had been said by Mr. Gandhi himself or whether he was reported as having said it?

Mr. Amery: It was written by Mr. Gandhi in his journal "The Harijam" on 28th June.

Mr. Maxton: Above his own name?

Mr. Amery: Yes, and the resolution passed by the Working Committee of Congress on 10th July would in itself have been ample justification for the Government of India for there and then interning the members of the Congress Working Committee. Subsequently, in the course of July, among much other evidence, which is naturally not suitable for publication, the Government of Madras came across instructions that were being issued by Provincial Committees in that Province. I need not read the whole of these instructions, but I would point out some of the things they recommended—urging Government officers to resign their jobs; arranging labour strikes; picketing of shops; stopping trains by pulling communication cords; travelling without tickets; cutting telegraph and telephone wires. At that moment there was a little injunction to say that rails should not be removed and no danger to life should be incurred—that certainly has not been followed since. And finally, the picketing of troops.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Who was really responsible for issuing these instructions?

Mr. Amery: The Andhra Provincial Committee which was one of the committees of Madras Province. There was enough evidence confronting the Government of India to make action highly necessary at an early time. The Government of India showed remarkable patience all through. They delayed taking any action so long as there was a possibility of the All-India Congress Committee not endorsing the sinister designs of the Working Committee announced by Mr. Gandhi. On 8th August the All-India Working Committee, by an overwhelming majority, endorsed those designs and thereupon the Government of India, on its own initiative, without


reference to this country, by unanimous decision of a body which at that moment consisted of 11 Indian members and one European member, took the only action which a self-respecting Government could take in these circumstances. There is absolutely no justification whatever for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that this action was deliberately postponed until the House of Commons adjourned for its Recess, which it did on 7th August. The matter was entirely determined by the action of the All-India Congress Committee and by the Government of India.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had no previous warning, no intimation at all that this action was in contemplation, that it came as much a surprise to him as it did to me?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, I do not say that. Naturally, the Government of India and His Majesty's Government are in communication on the general situation, but in a matter directly affecting the primary responsibility of the Government of India for peace and order within its own confines, the Government of India took immediate action without waiting to consult with or asking the permission of the Government of this country, and the tribute which the Prime Minister paid yesterday—

Mr. Maxton: They must have had previous knowledge.

Mr. Amery: I must be allowed to conduct my speech in my own way. I have fully answered the point which the hon. Member made.

Mr. Maxton: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give way as most Ministers do on important matters. I want us to press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. It seems to be a most extraordinary state of affairs that the Indian Government on their own, without consultation with the Home Government, should take action which was not merely a local administrative action but a big reversal of previous policy without having the authority from here to do it, the specific authority apart from the ordinary responsibilities.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The Government of India knew quite well that in maintaining the peace of India it could reckon confidently upon the support of His

Majesty's Government. But on a matter which required instant action to prevent a policy of sabotage which was decided upon on 8th August the Government of India rightly did its duty by acting immediately. I think that that disposes entirely of the suggestion that the action of the Government of India was carefully timed for the moment when Parliament here would not be sitting.

Mr. Maxton: I could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party referred to the view of organised labour, namely, that the action taken was a "timely and inevitable precaution." It might be put in more simple language, as Mr. Jinnah put it when he said that the Government "instead of waiting to be hit, hit first," and in doing so, I venture to say, saved India from grave disaster.

Mr. Maxton: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Amery: The immediate reaction to the news of the arrests was undoubtedly a series of noisy, hooligan demonstrations of a very widespread character. They were very rapidly disposed of but what was much worse was the concentration of effort at sabotage in certain directions and in certain parts of India, a concentrated attack upon the whole system of communications, on the postal services, telephone and telegraph services, upon railway communications, the interruption of railway tracks, the destruction of railway stations and rolling stock and attack upon aerodromes. I might point out to the House that the attention specially paid to the destruction of controls, the destruction of signalling apparatus, damaging of bridges and roads, all indicated a carefully planned scheme of attack not only upon the daily life of India but on the safety of India. The attack was mainly concentrated on the vital strategic area now exposed to Japanese attack lying between Eastern India and the main area of India and India's armed strength, as well as the area which would most prejudice the carrying of coal from the mines to the factories of India.

Mr. Cove: If the charge against Congress is so vital as this, why have their leaders been safely locked up in a pleasant concentration house? Why not put them out of existence if the charge is so serious?

Mr. Amery: The charge is that this attack was substantially planned in accordance with general directions given by Congress and in accordance with those directives of a particular provincial committee, which I have already read out. Something like 300 stations were attacked and at least 24 cases of derailment of trains have been reported. Disturbance was particularly violent in Behar, a vital strategic area. Something like 65 police stations were attacked. At another place, Chimar, in the Central Province, a magistrate and police officers were done to death after refusing the offer of their lives if they joined Congress and resigned from Government service. At Ashti, in the same Province, two constables were burned alive with kerosene. A police officer suffered a similar fate in Behar. It is perfectly clear that we were confronted with a movement which was something a good deal more than an ordinary student and hooligan riot. We were confronted with something very serious. Had the organisation of that movement been allowed to develop for several weeks while the smoke-screen of resolutions and discussions about how and under what conditions the British Government was to clear out of India was being discussed, the result might well have been disastrous.
As it is, I venture to say that the vigorous and firm action taken by the Government of India and by the Governments of the self-governing Provinces—because in five Provinces with a population of 110,000,000 the whole action of dealing with this problem has been taken by Indian Ministers, responsible to Indian legislatures—has alone prevented a situation which would have paralysed the Indian war effort and which would have made it impossible to defend India or to relieve China by our occupation of Burma. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that this movement was, in its main outline, deliberately organised and intended by those who, unfortunately, had succeeded in establishing control over the Congress movement. All the evidence which has come to us makes it clear that this whole campaign of disorder and revolt is the outcome of the application locally by local leaders of the general guidance which the Congress leaders have inspired.
Several Questions have been asked during the Debate. The hon. Member for

West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) referred to what he called whipping, which is, in fact, caning with a light rattan cane of half-an-inch diameter. It is employed, as in this country, against crimes of brutal violence, and on that I gave him a full answer yesterday or the day before. He also raised the question of the prison riots in Dacca and Baghalpur. In each case it was a prison mutiny. In the case of Dacca it was within the purview of the authority of the Bengal Ministry and in the case of Baghalpur it was entirely confined to habitual convicts and was not concerned with the present movement except in so far as the present state in India may have encouraged these convicts, to riot and revolt. Broadly speaking, I think we can say, with the Prime Minister, that we have emerged from a situation of great danger into one upon which we can look with a reasonable amount of confidence. At the same time the disturbances are by no means wholly over and we should be well not to suggest that we are out of the wood yet.
From that situation, the actual situation of security, on which there was no option for the Government of India but to act as they did, whatever may have been the political issues underlying the Congress decision to take unlawful and criminal action, I would like to turn for a moment to the political issues that underlie this problem. We are, in this matter, confronted by a fundamental divergence of policy and outlook. The whole policy of Congress—it may have grown up naturally over the years—the policy of the little co-opted body which dominates Congress, is based on the assumption that Congress is entitled to step into the shoes of the British Government and take over control of the whole of India. That is the fundamental assumption on which all their policy is based. The policy of His Majesty's Government as set forward first of all in August, 1940, and again far more specifically, clearly and amply by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal on his mission to India, is that India shall obtain, with a minimum of delay after the war, the same freedom as is enjoyed by the great Dominions or, for that matter, as is enjoyed by ourselves, the same freedom of control of her own destiny among the nations of the Commonwealth and the world. But the basis on which that constitution can be arrived


at is by agreement and compromise between the different elements within India. On no other basis is it possible for a constitutional settlement, if initiated, to last. Nowhere in the world whether it is the United States, the British Dominions or any other country can a composite structure embracing many elements of great divergence—and nowhere is fundamental divergence so great as in India—endure unless the Constitution itself reflects in a substantial measure a wide agreement based upon discussion and compromise between the elements which have to live together within a single political framework. That condition inevitably led to another—that, as an inevitable consequence, an inescapable consequence, of the conclusion that India's future could only be settled by Indians by agreement among themselves, nothing should be done to-day which would prejudge that settlement, which would throw the control of the future into the hands of a dozen or so wholly irresponsible people, responsible to no constitution here or in India, with nobody to call them to account.
On purely military considerations there is an immensely powerful case, whilst the war is on, for retaining the ultimate control of Indian policy in the hands of His Majesty's Government, for the very fact that the defence of India, the defence of Ceylon, the Middle East and Burma, are all inseparably connected, and that every Department in the Government of India bears upon that defence. But quite apart from that practical consideration, there is the constitutional consideration inescapable from the fact that we are pledged to a Constitution by agreement, that we cannot to-day, in the complete absence of agreement, hand over unqualified and unlimited power to any particular group of individuals. His Majesty's Government were prepared, through my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal who, as was said by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer), interpreted the policy of His Majesty's Government not only with the utmost patience and ability but also in the very widest and most generous spirit—always subject to that one consideration that the measure of power, however wide, given now to a Government of Indian political leaders must be subject in the last resort to ultimate control by this Parliament. In practice, we know how very real is

the power enjoyed by Indian Members of the Viceroy's Executive. Sir Firozkhan Noon, the Defence Member, in a speech the other day, drew attention to the fact that in the 11 months during which he had been a Member of the Viceroy's Council, he had not known one case in which the Viceroy had over-ridden the views of the majority of his Executive. All the same, to have given way to the demand which Congress put forward at the last moment that the Viceroy's power should be definitely obliterated and the whole power given to a self-constituted group of individuals, responsible to nobody, would at once have precipitated chaos and confusion in India. It could not have been accepted by His Majesty's Government and would not have been accepted by India as a whole.
In this connection, I should like to take the opportunity of dealing with rumours which have had widespread currency in this country, and I believe even more in the United States, that. my right hon. and learned Friend in the course of his mission, either went or could have gone beyond the definite instructions of the Cabinet in this matter—they were not only instructions, they were an inherent part of our policy—or that, having done so, he was suddenly pulled back and prevented from achieving a settlement by last moment instructions from the War Cabinet or from the Prime Minister. I venture to give a categorical denial to those rumours in whichever form they have been put forward. My right hon. and learned Friend faithfully carried out his mission, interpreting in the most generous sense the instructions which he was given, the policy which he had wholeheartedly accepted, but in no respect departing from the essentials of that policy.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Cannot we at long last get the inner history about what the right hon. Gentleman has just referred to? Who was, then, responsible for the unexpected, the totally unlooked for, collapse of these conversations in India on or about 8th April? Can we get the whole truth at last? We have not had it yet.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. The change took place on the intervention of Mr. Gandhi. The Congress Working Committee had


passed a resolution to accept the proposals. Mr. Gandhi intervened and subsequently that resolution was reversed.

Mr. Davies: Was that the resolution passed by Congress on 2nd April which they did not divulge to the public until 10th April? That was the only resolution that existed on the part of Congress so far as those negotiations or conversations were concerned.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman was not there and I was, which makes a difference.

Mr. Davies: We have got the White Paper.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member asked me what happened and why there was a change. I am not suggesting the first resolution was published or bound Congress, or anything else. It constantly happens in the course of negotiations, with trade unions or anybody else, that you get a resolution and after further' consideration it is reversed, when there is a narrow majority one way or another. That is what happened.

Mr. Davies: But the leaders of Congress, Dr. Azad and Mr. Nehru, stated in public on 10th April, when that resolution was made public, that they stood by that resolution, and that nothing has been known until now about Mr. Gandhi intervening and in some way or another sabotaging or destroying that resolution. It is extraordinary that, in the last letter sent to the Lord Privy Seal, no reference whatsoever was made to the fact as stated to the House just now.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. and learned Friend has thrown a light, from his direct knowledge, upon the inner history of this matter, but I think I have already made it clear that, whatever the inner history may have been, what wrecked the negotiations was the fact that at the last moment Congress put up a demand which was fundamentally inconsistent with the whole principle of the offer made by His Majesty's Government, namely, the demand that without qualification or limitation the whole Government of India should be put into their hands. That is the real reason why the negotiations broke down, and having broken down, undoubtedly there was grave disappointment not only among members of the

Congress Working Committee but among all thoughtful persons in India, grave disappointent, and a grave loss of credit to Mr. Gandhi and the Congress party for the line they had taken.
In these circumstances, Mr. Gandhi and the Congress majority that then went with him determined upon a policy of mass disobedience. In circumstances of difficulty people naturally revert to the technique with which they have been most familiar, and in Mr. Gandhi's case it was the technique of mass disobedience. Only it was to be raised, on this occasion, to the Nth. That was the position to which, by his unfortunate influence over his colleagues, he in the following weeks committed the Congress party. It was to be a deliberate trial of strength. I have heard it said often, "Why indulge in repression and not in some constructive initiative?" I do think the British Government can in all fairness claim that all the constructive proposals with regard to the Indian problem of recent years have come from here. Action on the part of Mr. Gandhi, who in these matters has been the arch saboteur, has invariably been wrecking.
In this particular instance it was meant to be not only wrecking but deliberately coercive. He was encouraged no doubt by the mildness of the Government of India in the hope that in the face of a general violence campaign the Government would in one respect or another give way. It did not. That was Mr. Gandhi's answer to my right hon. and learned Friend. All the rest of the resolutions which were supposed to be considered and the failure to accept which involved civil disobedience were a pure smoke-screen. How completely they were a smoke-screen can be seen by the utter inconsistency, from week to week and almost from day to day, which the different forms of Mr. Gandhi's declarations and resolutions took. Immediately after my right hon. and learned Friend left India, Mr. Gandhi in "Harijan" said:
Why blame the British for our limitations? The attainment of independence is impossible until we have solved the communal tangle.
A few weeks later he committed himself to a resolution which stated that the moment independence was given and India handed over to Congress, the communal tangle would solve itself and an agreed provisional Government would come into existence. Similarly in the


first resolution which he drafted in May he said that on the British quitting India, India's first step would probably be to start negotiations with Japan against whom India felt no ill-will at all. When it was suggested that was not good propaganda in this country or in the United States Mr. Gandhi cheerfully turned round and said the object of immediately handing over India was to give the maximum help to the Allied cause. At one moment he asked us to quit and "leave India to God or to anarchy." The next he committed himself to the wholly unwarranted prediction that our quitting would result in the immediate setting up of a stable agreed provisional government.
I think we can be quite clear on this issue that these resolutions meant nothing in themselves and that any conversations that Mr. Gandhi might have wanted to indulge in after the resolutions were sanctioned by the All-India Working Congress Committee were merely meant to gain time for the perfecting of the organisation of the effort to sabotage the future independence and freedom of India. I think I can very well sum up that situation in the word of the Defence Member (Sir Firozkhan Noon). He said:
This lawlessness will soon subside and the Congress philosophy of force fail. Thank God and the police and the Army for that. Thereafter we have only the second alternative left to us for winning our freedom—compromise and unity.
That is the only alternative by which India can win her freedom and will win her freedom. In the immediate future we have to deal with the position as it stands. I entirely agree with those who say that a problem like the political problem in India cannot be settled merely by standing pat and enforcing law and order. But there are moments, not least in the middle of a struggle for existence, and not least when there is no beginning of a sign of the really powerful organisations coming together, when there may be no alternative for a time but to enforce ordinary law and order and good government. Settlement by negotiation is always desirable, but there can be no mistake greater—and everyone recognises it in international affairs—than to try to negotiate when there is not the slightest chance of success, or to negotiate with those who are not in a position to deliver the goods. I stated in answer to a Question earlier to-day that

His Majesty's Government will welcome every effort made by statesmen of good will in India to bring the different elements together. But good will on the part of statesmen who cannot control parties or organisations, though desirable in itself, is not sufficient; you have to bring the main elements together, or rather they have to come together and have to show at any rate a sufficient willingness to come together to enable something to be done. My right hon. and learned Friend went out in faith and hope that there was a possibility of their coming together. I am sorry to say that while he travelled many thousands of miles to meet them, the different parties in India were not prepared to cross the street to meet each other or discuss either among themselves or with him a future settlement for India.

Mr. Shinwell: That is not a true statement.

Mr. Amery: We have to wait, so far as the Congress leaders are concerned, for that change of heart to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) referred, Meanwhile we naturally welcome every proposal which, within the broad general framework of our considered policy, is practical. As I pointed out, it was not a bargaining policy which my right hon. and learned Friend took with him; it was a considered policy, and it is the only policy under which a final and permanent solution of the Indian problem can be achieved. Within that broad framework we are only too glad to welcome any practical proposals that are brought forward with any reasonable hope of agreement among the main parties in India. Meanwhile the immediate government of India is to-day in the hands of an Executive consisting of Members who, apart from the one issue of controlling large political organisations, are not only men of high ability—Indian Nationalists just as good as the leaders of the great organised parties—but also by their experience and by what they have done in public life are as representative as any body of men you can find in India to-day. It is to them, tried and tested by the courage they have shown in this difficult situation, that we and India must look in the main for the immediate control of India's future and for her conduct


of the war. Meanwhile there is nothing in the world to prevent men of good will in India coming together and hastening on the future by seeing if some agreement can be found on the future Constitution or on the methods by which it is to be arrived at. All that is and has been throughout perfectly open, and whatever is done on those lines will certainly meet with the wholehearted approval of His Majesty's Government.
I want to close, on this undoubtedly difficult matter, with one word of optimism. The situation in India is immensely complicated and difficult. It has elements in it in some respects more difficult than those which Europe, or for instance Ireland or Palestine, have had to face. There are however elements of unity. There is not only the unity of administration and of law and of trade which Britain has created during these last two hundred years—a system of unity of which we have every reason to be proud.
There is the long peace which India has enjoyed, and the interlocking of interests throughout India from end to end. On the other hand, we have the common wish of all Indians, not only of the Congress Party and the Mussulmans but also the Princes, who must, not only by virtue of our Treaty obligations with them but also by their geographical situation and the extent of their populations, play an immensely important part in the future, to see India self-governing, free but united and not reverting to anarchy. We have substantially the same unity in this country. We are at one in wanting India to be free. We want her to take her place as a freely associated member of that wonderful partnership of nations which we call the British Commonwealth, a partnership which, I believe, is destined to play an even greater part in the world in future years than it has played in the past. That is the policy to which we are committed and to which the Prime Minister committed himself in the opening and vital sentence of his statement yesterday, a policy in which all patriotic Indians equally believe. With that substratum of unity it is not beyond reason to hope that under some constitutional form or other, at some time or other—I hope not too distant a time—Indians may be able to agree upon a constitution under which they can not only live but develop to the

full the wonderful natural resources of their country and the great gifts of her people.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I believe the whole House and the whole country, and I think I may say the Empire and India, will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's closing words. They were words of vision, they were words which may prove themselves creative words in a moment of great need. I think they will give a hope which has been lacking hitherto to many in India. I hope they will give confidence and faith to many who need it and that, as the result of that closing message of the Secretary of State, renewed efforts will be put forth to get understanding and to achieve unity, and through that to win the freedom and independence that we all want India to enjoy. I cannot but think that one effect of the last passage of his speech may be to give that encouragement of which there is so much need. At a time like this we should be extremely careful that no word is spoken here which will exacerbate the difficulties and the bitterness already unhappily present in India to-day. I might have dealt with some of the statements that have been made during the Debate, but I do not want to do that now because instead of pouring oil upon the troubled waters, it might have the result, as is too often the case with such efforts, of putting oil upon a conflagration. But I think it may be possible that India to-day may feel that there is a message coming from the Secreary of State and from this Parliament, a message of fellowship and an appeal to forget the differences and the bitterness of the past and with it an admission on our part which we ought to make that while there is much in our past history for which we are proud and thankful there is also much for which we are bitterly sorry and for which we must ask the forgiveness of our fellow subjects, but that we ask them now to go forward with us in this great association of freedom for our mutual good.
In asking that of them, I think we can ask of our Government and the Government of India—the Indian Government of India—that every facility will be given to those who are seeking to get understanding, that they will be aided and encouraged to communicate with the leaders of the Congress


Party who are now in internment with this object in view, and that no obstacle will be put in their way. Many of us, while sympathising with many of the aims of the Congress Party, regret profoundly their recent decision and the sad, deplorable events which have followed from the action of ignorant, misguided people who began that campaign of nonviolence and were led in their bitterness into acts of violence and crime. We need not dwell upon the past. We want to look to the future. We know that this party represents the largest body of organised political opinion in India and that we must hope and work for agreement with it if we are to get that unity which is needed for the achievement of our aims. Therefore, I hope we may have this assurance, that full facilities will be granted for all these efforts for peacemaking and unity which have already been begun by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, and by Mr. Rajagopalachariar, and which have been called for by the venerable Metropolitan of India, a man who stands outside politics, but who is honestly concerned that the Government policy should not just be one which is negative—not one simply of repression. I am sure he will be gladdened by the thought that the Secretary of State recognises that truth, that he does not want this policy, though he has to maintain order, to be one that is negative. Therefore we have the duty laid upon us to express our fullest agreement with the ideal which has been set before us to-day and to send out to our fellow citizens in India a message that we want them to unite with us and with one another, to work together and to live together in a spirit of trust and understanding which alone can make freedom really practicable and really possible. India will be giving something to the whole world should she attain that freedom. It will not be a gain for herself alone. It will be a gain for the whole human race.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). I hope that the message to which he has given expression with so much eloquence and sincerity will be conveyed to India. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he will take some means to convey without loss of time to the Indian

Government and the Indian people that the vast majority of feeling in this House is in favour of the policy to which the Prime Minister gave expression in his statement yesterday; and also that the Prime Minister has the support of the vast majority of the people of the country in the difficult situation with which he has to deal in relation to Indian administration. Many speeches have been made which are calculated to cause unfavourable repercussions in India, and in view of the delicacy of the situation, the difficulties with which my right hon. Friend has to contend and the situation with which the Prime Minister is confronted in dealing with a totalitarian war—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) is always making such constructive contributions—we ought to tell the people of India that the country supports the policy defined by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I would not have got up if I could have derived the slightest hope from the long and, may I say, the very tedious speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has inflicted on the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am entitled to state my own personal reactions to it. The right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time in defending that most irresponsible and disastrous statement of the Prime Minister yesterday. He said the same thing but with greater finesse, and he did not withdraw a single word from the attack that the Prime Minister made. Nor did he in any way try to correct the long list of deliberately misleading statements of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State knows very well what is the strength of the Indian National Congress. The Government have revealed it by the rush with which they imprisoned practically all the leaders of Congress. Not all of them are Hindus. If Congress has not got tremendous support in India, why was there this panicky imprisonment? India is one of our bases for our struggle in the Far East. Before we leave the House doped by the soothing tones of the right hon. Gentleman, let us consider what is the exact position facing the country and the world in India today. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Government have prevented anarchy breaking out all over India. Has there been as much anarchy in India since the Mutiny as exists at this moment?


Can the Government depend upon any representative section of the Indian population to-day? They know they cannot. That is why the Secretary of State and the Lord Privy Seal have worked so hard in pretending that Congress have no influence in India.

Sir S. Cripps: Oh, no.

Mr. Davies: The Lord Privy Seal denies it. May I ask him whether he wrote the deliberately misleading article which appeared in the "New York Times"? It had his name to it, but apparently he has, forgotten it.

Sir S. Cripps: I never said that Congress had no influence in India at all. Congress is one of the big parties in India.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman worked very hard to show that Congress has shed all the influence it may have had in India.

Sir S. Cripps: Oh, no.

Mr. Davies: Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that every one of the 90,000,000 Moslems in India were against Congress and were supporting him and his Government here?

Sir S. Cripps: No.

Mr. Davies: I have the article here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the whole of the 90,000,000 Moslems were not supporting Congress.

Sir S. Cripps: What I said was that if any issue of Islam was raised, the whole of the Moslem population would support the Moslem League.

Mr. Davies: The Lord Privy Seal must be getting into a very difficult situation over this Indian business. I used to know him when he held a great respect for facts and truth. He knows that that statement is incorrect and that Congress represents far more Moslems than the Moslem League ever has represented. Those with the most elementary knowledge of India know that. What criterion, does the right hon. and learned Gentle-man use in coming to his conclusion? The best criterion as to the extent of the influence of Congress was the 1937 elections. The talk of the Secretary of State for India will impress no one who knows the facts. The Lord Privy Seal knows

very well that in those elections only 4.6 per cent. of the Moslem electorate voted for the Moslem League. It is a fact of simple arithmetic.

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Mr. Davies: Then on what ground can the right hon. and learned Gentleman contend for a moment that Congress was not supported by the Moslems when the party had Congress Ministries in Provinces, particularly the North-West Frontier Province, which was overwhelmingly Moslem? The Lord Privy Seal has forgotten another fact. It is no use pretending that Congress is not the instrument that makes articulate the mass aspirations of the Indian people. He knows that very well. Has he so conveniently forgotten that every representative section of Indian opinion turned down his own miserable proposals? He has never explained that. The Moslem League turned them down, and so did the Hindu masses and the depressed classes.

Sir S. Cripps: I have explained the matter often. The Moslem League waited until they saw what Congress would do. They passed a unanimous resolution accepting the proposals in the Moslem League, but after they found that Congress had turned them down they passed another resolution which did not accept them.

Mr. Davies: That is a new explanation. It is several months since the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in India, and that is the last explanation I have heard. The one immediately previous was that Gandhi had upset the negotiations of Congress representatives with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Secretary of State for India tried to-day to present Congress in such a shabby light, how was it that he did not give the House the last resolution passed by Congress before his minions were ordered to arrest the members of Congress? Why did he indulge for 25 minutes in nothing but innuendo, and in casting aspersions, without producing any evidence to justify them? I have here the last resolution. For passing it all the popular leaders of the Indian masses are in prison at this moment.
The resolution certainly demanded the withdrawal of British power and the transference of the powers of government


to a provisional Government. There is nothing new in that. In the same resolution Congress guaranteed the rights of all minorities, as they always have done. Further, they committed the manpower and the resources of India to the fight against the Axis Powers. That does not seem to have impressed this Government at all—no more than it could have been impressed before it handed over Burma to the Japs. I mean what I say. What was the attitude of the Government towards Burma, where every popular leader and the extremely popular Premier of the Burmese people were placed in prison or concentration camps? I asked in this House many months ago, when Malaya and Burma were not, apparently, in immediate danger, whether this Government would prefer handing over the people of Burma and of India to the tender mercies of Fascist Imperialist Japan to granting them the necessary freedom to fight for the countries that are theirs. At the time I was jeered at from the benches opposite. The Government did hand over Burma to Japan. They knew they had not the remotest chance of defending that country unless the masses there were behind any forces we could place there. The same observation applies to India to-day. I want to tell both right hon. Gentlemen that I am confident—and I thank them for this conviction which they have forced upon me—that they would far prefer the whole of India to go under the heel of Nazi or Fascist Japan rather than grant freedom to the Indian people to fight to develop their own resources and to defend their own country; and I regret more than words of mine can express that the Lord Privy Seal is now a party to that attitude.
Let us look at India for a moment—but not in the light of the honeyed, misleading words of the Secretary of State for India. What is the picture there to-day? Anarchy more than has existed there since the Mutiny. That is the result of British rule, by the way. A great deal of Nazi technique applied in keeping down the masses of India—collective fines, whippings, the shooting of unarmed people, martyrisation. That is the technique in India. There sits a one-time Socialist who travelled with such terrific speed from obscurity on the Right, through the Left and back again to the Right, in anticipation of again passing

into obscurity. We shall see about it. We have had many experiences of that kind in my movement. I regret to say that very much. What else is there? If India is attacked by Japan on a large scale—and we all must anticipate it, as we should—how many of the Allied troops there will be immobilised because of the resentful, embittered population? To what extent will the forces we have there now, Allied forces drawn from many quarters of the world, be preoccupied with the Indian people who have been so embittered by the stupid rule to which they have been subjected? How many millions of those forces will not be able to turn their attention to what ought to be our only enemy in the struggle?
Further, to what extent has the policy of the Government immobilised the productive powers of India to-day? It is a country which is immeasurably rich, but there is not a willing population there. They are making one demand—that we should clear out. They have had experience for 150 to 200 years of that British Imperialism which no one has condemned more eloquently than the Lord Privy Seal. How much of India's vast labour-power will the Government of India have to support the Allied forces in the fight against Japan? I am not surprised that neither right hon. Gentlemen cares to answer that question. May I say that I am satisfied that this Government have not the remotest intention of granting any measure of freedom or independence to India, notwithstanding all their speeches and protestations. As one Member of this House I refuse to believe that the Government are sincere. It is no use telling me, or telling those who who memories of the last war, that certain promises are being made to India, India was promised Dominion status in the last war, 25 years ago, but has not got it yet.
Let me refer to other parts of the last resolution of Congress. I stated that the Indian National Congress committed the man-power and resources of India to the fight against the Axis. The resolution denied emphatically that India had any desire to remain neutral or to appease the Axis. The resolution was an emphatic anti-Fascist declaration, and, what is so conveniently forgotten, it called upon the British Government to reopen negotiations with a view to trying to come to a settlement in India. It is known very well


that, before Gandhi would issue any kind of instruction or make any declaration, he was going to communicate with the Viceroy of India, The answer to those resolutions was these imprisonments. I repeat that I am sorry about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, from whom I and others expected so much when he left this country, not, we thought, with an absolutely impracticable formula but with one which gave some basis for negotiation, and with the great sympathy which we thought he had with the Indian people. We thought he had courage and vision to appreciate the position of world affairs today and what India must mean to us in our struggle against Fascism in the Far East. No, the explanation given this afternoon is no explanation at all.
I want to tell the two right hon. Gentlemen that the problem of India will be resolved. I have no doubt at all. The Indian people will get their freedom. Their independence will come to them, not as a result of anything that this Government will do but because world forces are in existence far beyond the control of the Secretary of State for India and of this Government. They are at work today, and out of the play and interplay of those forces India will get her long-looked-for freedom. But the tragedy will be that India will be resentful and embittered towards this country. Inevitably, freedom will come to those 400,000,000 people. We cannot stay it, although this country has tried for years. Now the world is taking up India's problem. There are world forces greater than those of any Government. I ask the two right hon. Gentlemen: Why not take the step now, and gain the lasting friendship of those 400,000,00c people? Get them into the comity of nations who are out to establish freedom all over the world. If that is not done, I ask the two right hon. Gentlemen to stop prattling about participating in a war of liberation. I regret intensely that so many right hon. Gentlemen fail when facing that test.
India will get her freedom. Have not this Government the vision and the sense to do the obvious just now? Let them re-open negotiations with the representatives of the Indian people. There can be no difficulty in establishing a provisional government. Those representatives have agreed that the Allied Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Forces must be

left untouched. The Lord Privy Seal need not smile. Some of us know that India passionately desires freedom to-day and are prepared to make a reasonable accommodation in the circumstances. The Indians will get their freedom and the obloquy will fall upon the Lord Privy Seal and a few others. Why can they not do the obvious thing and re-open negotiations? Get these men out of their prison. Let them understand and believe that you have one desire towards them, which is freeing the 400,000,000 Indians to join the other 400,000,000 people of China so that, with the help and inspiration of this country, freedom can be established in the Far East among 1,000,000,000 people. Axe you big enough to rise to that? Unfortunately, I am afraid that you are not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): This is one of the occasions on which I must remind the hon. Member that he must not address hon. or right hon. Members of the House directly, but must do so through the Chair.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you and the right hon. Gentlemen will accept my apology, I have said what I wanted to say; that is, no doubt, the reason why I violated one of the courtesies of the House, and I regret it. I hope that whatever may be said here to-day, a new start will be made somewhere within the Government in order to solve this problem, and to solve it to the benefit and to the glory of the British people as well as of the Indian people.

Mr. Driberg: I have listened to every speech made to-day in this Debate, and I listened with particular interest to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which did not seem to me at all tedious but rather exceedingly able and indeed persuasive on many points. With particular reference to Mr. Gandhi, I find it difficult to disagree with some of what he said. I regard Mr. Gandhi as a wrong-headed saint who has still—and it cannot be denied—an immense mystical influence among the masses of the Indian people. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer-he rather pointedly omitted to refer—to a man whom I regard as Mr. Gandhi's intellectual superior at any rate, the Pandit Nehru, a far more balanced man of greater political advancement than Mr. Gandhi.
At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman's speech did not leave me with any great feeling of hope for the future, as far as he dealt with it. He defended the air of militant exuberance in the Prime Minister's statement, and indeed that is quite comprehensible. The Government have had a victory over Congress, they have pulled off a successful coup; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister that one of the Prime Minister's own mottoes is, "In victory, magnanimity." They have shown that they can be strong. Can they show now that they can continue to be generous? We cannot stress too much—it has already been stressed in various ways on both sides of the House—that a mere condition of deadlock is fatal, and cannot be allowed to continue. For no reasons of pride, imperial or national, can we assent to a situation in which both parties to a dispute sit back and say that the next move must come from the other side.
We have been reminded repeatedly that the Japanese are at the very gates of India. It seems to me that the granting to India of some measure of the freedom which so many Indian Leaders have been demanding is not merely an idealistic measure tied up with the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter and so on; it is not merely something to be looked forward to in the distant future after the cessation of hostilities, but, it seems to me, an indispensable part of the programme for the successful cessation of hostilities. It is an inevitable preliminary to victory in the Far East that we should enlist the masses of the Indian people on our side. But you cannot impose enthusiasm for our cause by whippings or even canings, by terrorism or by the imprisonment of men who, however wrong-headed they may be, are regarded by millions of Indian people as their leaders.
It is a condition of victory there that we should somehow enlist the masses of the Indian people on our side. We have been told again and again, and it has been shown in this country and in other countries, that this is a total, all-in war, in which civilians are involved as intimately as fighting men. We could never have got through the blitz period, probably, had it not been for the inflexible spirit and morale of our people. If that is so, and I am sure it is, we are putting our own men—including those reinforcements

—in India in an impossible position and giving them an impossible task to do, unless we can mobilise alongside and around them the spirit of the Indian people. I suggest that we cannot do that by this policy of oppression, however necessary in the immediate crisis it might have seemed a few weeks ago.
The Government must make a further generous gesture. They must by some means reopen negotiations, and I suggest that the only way in which negotiations can be reopened without too much mutual suspicion is by enlisting the advice and co-operation of the United Nations, and especially the advice and co-operation of China and of Russia. In the Soviet Union they have succeeded to a remarkable degree, to a total degree, I might say, in solving their problems of race and nationality and communal problems. We cannot doubt that China is watching the situation in India with concern and anxiety. Call in the representative of Chiang Kai-shek. Call in the representative of Stalin. Let them meet and talk with the Indian leaders on the basis of good will and on the basis of the admission of a free India to membership and partnership in the United Nations now, not on the cessation of hostilities. I beg the Prime Minister to start thinking of India in terms of partnership and not of dominion. I urge him to remember the inscription often found on old sundials, "It is later than you think."

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (INTER-PARLIAMENARY UNION)

Colonel Arthur Evans: In these days it is not such a far cry from India to America. I would like to deal with another subject entirely, that is, the relationship which exists between the Members of Congress in the United States and Members of both Houses in this country. I do not think it is inappropriate that the last subject to be raised in the House before the short break, when Members will depart to discharge their other duties, should be the question of the relationship and personal contact between the Members of this hon. House and colleagues who sit in the House of Representatives and the Senate at Washington. Parliament has long taken the view that personal contact between themselves and


Members of foreign Parliaments all over the world is most desirable because it gives an opportunity for those who believe in the democratic form of Parliamentary government to exchange ideas and discuss together such problems as are common to all who are engaged in similar responsible tasks.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Colonel Evans: You will probably recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as one who supported me in the Parliamentary Union for many years, that 50 years ago, as a result of the efforts of a Member of this House, William Randal Cremer, who was elected in 1885 and who started life as a working carpenter and made his way to public recognition entirely by his own exertions within the trades union movement and the Reform League, the idea of an Inter-Parliamentary Union was born. When Andrew Carnegie was on a visit to England, Cremer invited him to take part in a sitting of the committee of his League, and on 16th June, 1887, conversations took place which were attended by various Members of Parliament, representing all parties in the House. The outcome of these conversations, in which Cremer took an important part, was the decision to form a delegation to present their memorandum in Washington. Cremer was successful in obtaining the signatures of 234 Members of the House of Commons to the Address, and a large number of Members of another place expressed their sympathy with the idea. The Address referred to the proposals which had been made to Congress that an arbitration treaty should be concluded with Great Britain, and contained the assurance that if such a proposal were adopted by Congress, the signatories to the Address would do everything in their power to ensure acceptance by the British Government. A Parliamentary delegation, headed by Cremer, went to America and presented the Address to the President. It can be counted as one of the successes obtained by the delegation that proposals and petitions in favour of arbitration rained in upon Congress immediately afterwards,

and on 14th June, 1888, the Senate adopted the resolution urging the President to enter into negotiations with other Governments on every suitable occasion regarding the introduction of arbitration.
It was at about this period that Cremer, as a result of his past activities, took a step which led to the creation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This actually came about in 1889, when the first conference under the auspices of that organisation took place in Paris, and nine countries were represented by 96 delegates. By 1906, when their annual congress took place in London, the number of countries represented had grown to 24, and so down the years it continued to increase, until in 1925 the representatives of 41 nations met in Washington. No doubt, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will recall that you had the privilege of being deputy-chairman of the British delegation. In 1939, in those memorable days just before the war broke out in Europe, 315 representatives of Parliaments throughout the world attended at Oslo. This conference met at a most momentous time in the history of the world. It took place under the distinguished presidency of Count Carton de Wiart, an ex-Prime Minister of Belgium, a Minister of State, and President of the Belgian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. On this occasion the United States of America felt the conference to be of such importance that they sent no fewer than 34 members of both Housee of Congress to Oslo, and our own delegation consisted of 22 members of both Houses, including Members of all parties. Towards the end of its proceedings, in the fateful days of August, 1939, the following resolution was unanimously passed, and on the proposal of the British delegation—which I am happy to say was completely united on this occasion—was despatched to all the governments concerned:
The XXXVth Inter-Parliamentary Conference, now in session at Oslo, views with concern the persistent tension which characterises the international situation—It is convinced that its action is in conformity with public opinion the whole world over when it ventures respectifully to remind all the powers of the obligations which they have assumed with a view to the settlement by means of conciliation and arbitration of the disputes which may arise between them. The Inter-Parliamentary Union, which possesses the authority conferred by 50 years of efforts directed towards promoting better relations between the nations and preventing armed


conflicts, urges all the Powers concerned, while respecting the independence of all nations, to spare no effort to bring about the settlement of international disputes in a spirit of justice and good will calculated to inspire full confidence, and to resort to the peaceful methods for the success of which the Union was created.
Our efforts failed. Looking back, one cannot help but feel that if the advice of those members of so many representative nations who took part in that memorable Debate had not fallen on deaf ears, the world would not have found itself in the position in which it finds itself to-day. I have ventured to give this brief background of the history of the Union and its activities so that Members will appreciate what an all important part it does and can play in furthering the cause of international justice and good will among those who share in its beliefs. It was in this sense that a cable was sent to Senator Alben Barkley, of Kentucky, Chairman of the American group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the occasion of United Nations day, and this was the cable:
As Chairmen respectively of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the recently formed British-American Parliamentary Committee we particularly wish on United Nations Day to send to our colleagues of the American group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and in Congress generally—our cordial greetings and good wishes in the difficult tasks which lie before them. We share with you complete faith in the justice of our cause and a deep conviction that in maintaining the principles of government by the people and for the people the United Nations will find strength to endure the battle—to enjoy the true reward of victory and to establish the foundations of an era of peace for all peoples.
In due course the following cable was received, which I consider it my duty to communicate to the House. It was from the Chairman of the American group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union:
I wish to acknowledge and thank you for your cablegram on behalf of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the recently formed British American Parliamentary Committee.
On behalf of the American Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and on behalf of Congress as a whole—I wish to thank you for your cordial greeting and good wishes on the occasion of your cable.
We are deeply convinced of the necessity for co-ordinated action on the part of our two great nations and all the United Nations.
We look forward to that co-ordination, not only with pleasure, but with the satisfaction that ultimate victory will crown our efforts to

sustain the principles of free government for which we are fighting. With cordial good wishes to your colleagues.
The Executive Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has the largest all-party subscribing membership of any Parliamentary committee in existence to-day, are also deeply convinced of the necessity for co-ordinated action on the part of our two great nations and all the United Nations, and hope that it will soon again be possible for direct personal contact to be made between the representatives of Congress and of Parliament. We are convinced that only good can come from such personal contacts, particularly at a time when our two great nations are engaged in a struggle for life or death—the outcome of which will affect our two peoples for generations to come. The timing, however, of such official visits, either one way or the other, must be carefully gauged. It is essential, if our goal is to be achieved, that the greatest care must be taken to see that no mischievous person or persons are given the opportunity to misrepresent the purpose of such visits and contacts.
It is obvious, for instance, that it would be unwise for any responsible and representative body to visit America when they are on the verge of a general election, and reviewing issues which are essentially their own problems. Not only would such a moment be inauspicious, but their presence might easily be misunderstood, and indeed misrepresented by those whose object it is to cause disruption rather than to further the cause of unity and the pooling of all resources which is vital, if complete victory is to be achieved.
For that reason I find it difficult to understand the attack which Sir Walter Citrine made on the advisers on labour problems who are attached to the British Embassy at Washington and advise the Ambassador on matters pertaining to American conditions of labour in the States. He delivered this attack at Blackpool yesterday. According to a newspaper report, Sir Walter explained that American traditional hostility to Communism was at the root of his failure to get American labour to join the Anglo-Soviet Trade Union Committee in a triple alliance. Sir Walter reminded the delegates that the attitude of the American public was one of traditional hostility to Communism. Be that as it may, I


cannot feel that any useful purpose would be served if a delegation of British trade union officials went to the United States when a general election is about to be held and endeavoured to persuade American labour and American public opinion generally that their point of view On this particular problem was wrong. Such action, in my judgment, could only lead to bitterness, misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Let the people- of America settle their own political problems in their own particular way next November. After the dust of controversy has died down would be the time for mutual contacts whether of a trade union or Parliamentary nature.
For this reason the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union earnestly hope that when Congress is being elected or re-elected as the case may be a most cordial invitation will be extended to them to send over a representative all-party delegation to visit us here to see for themselves the spontaneous effort that the people of this country are making to bring about a successful conclusion to the conflict. It would be idle to deny that considerable misunderstanding still exists in the minds of certain sections of our peoples towards each other, and it is vital, if that co-ordination which American and British groups regard as of paramount importance is to become a fact, that the most energetic steps to eradicate such suspicions must be pursued with a relentless faith, energy and determination.
Perhaps the attention of Members has been drawn to a despatch of the New York representative of a popular Sunday British newspaper which was published some months ago. In his article he discusses the special report of the representation of the British case in the United States of America. It was made, he says, after an exhaustive study by an Anglo-American official, and he alleges it has been put before the British Embassy and our own Ministry of Information, but has, apparently, been shelved. According to this report, at a time when it is vital that both peoples should have a thorough and clear understanding of each other's problems and methods, the British case is not being put and the Americans are saying that the reason the British are so "darned reserved" is because they are doing nothing. In other

words, "Sometimes I sit and think, and sometimes I just sit." In spite of what the Minister of Information told the House a few weeks ago, I am sure that he or the Government cannot be well pleased with the present situation, particularly if he has read the report to which I have referred, and if I may I would like to read one or two extracts from this report for the benefit of the House:
We need someone of the highest authority to make factual statements and to clear the air. Now we have to shout. We may not like it, but we must. We shall not be heard if we are content to whisper in the thunder and storm of publicity around us. Americans expect you to shout your wares. They see no sense in understatement. I do not think we should be complacent and just hope that this bitter feeling will burn itself out when the war is successfully won. It is time to make our point of view clear, to show the degree of our own sacrifice, our own losses, and what our own productive effort is now. Firstly, we should cease to butter up American efforts unduly. I do not wonder that the American people get the impression that nobody else is doing anything. It is up to us to see that we are represented and give them the same colourful stuff about ourselves.
There are other quotations with which I will not now weary the House, but this I do say, that there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has followed this situation closely, who has the advantage of reading extracts from the American Press regularly, that the situation is far from satisfactory. Personally, I think that in the past we have sent the Wrong type of person to the United States to present our case. One hears it said on all sides that the la-de-da high hat Englishman, who speaks with a B.B.C. voice and in a high falutin superior manner, has no place in the United States of America. Naturalness, a direct manner, and a close relation to Mother Earth, are more the qualities which are required to impress our American friends. It is no use my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information rising superior and saying that "high-pressure publicity merchants" are not wanted in the States, and leaving it at that. The Americans want to be told about our effort. They are dying to understand the British case. We have evidence enough of that from their fighting men and women whom we have been so honoured and pleased to welcome to our shores. As the Prime Minister said in the House the other day, the more contacts we have, the better for us all.


Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friend, representing as he does His Majesty's Government in this particular respect, to take a broad and realistic view of the situation. Do not think you can win this war by keeping responsible Americans and British apart, do not let your prejudices interfere with your judgment, but facilitate as far as possible that union between the two peoples which will ensure peace on earth and good will for all men.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): At the outset I should like to say that I find very little with which to disagree in what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans). I assure him that there is complete agreement with him as to the necessity for our doing everything possible to improve and consolidate our relations with the great American people. I do not dissent in the least from what he has said about the value of the work done by the Inter-parliamentary Union; in fact, I would like to thank him for the tribute he has paid to the founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Sir Randal Cremer, who spent almost the whole of his Parliamentary life, in working for the cause of international understanding. It so happens that I represent in the House the same constituency as he represented.
There are certain points made by my hon. and gallant Friend which I think he will not expect me to take up. For instance, he made something in the nature of an attack upon Sir Walter Citrine for the observations he made recently regarding the American Embassy. I think it would be out of place for me here to deal with that particular point. I would only say that anyone who knows Sir Walter Citrine knows full well that he is as anxious as any man in this country to see good and firm relations established between the British and American peoples.
The hon. and gallant Member has said that we have not sent the right kind of people to America to put our case, and I should be foolish to stand here at this Box and suggest that we have never made mistakes in that respect. I think it is true that in the past people have been sent to America to put our case, or have been allowed to go there and put our case, who have not altogether been the best for the job. I think, however, if he takes the last six months or so, he will find that

there has been a distinct change in that respect. Recently my right hon. Friend has taken the greatest possible pains to see that the only people who go there are people who are fitted in every kind of way to put the British case before the American people. With regard to the manner in which we should conduct our propaganda in the United States, I think it is-probably true that we have suffered as a result of our natural characteristics of modesty, understatement and diffidence. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I think that it is perfectly true, although perhaps I am speaking more of the English than of the Scots. However, the fact remains that there is a tendency on the part of English people to be too modest or too diffident in putting their case. I think there has been something of that element in our propaganda in America in the past, and that it would probably be a good thing now for us to be at pains to explain to the people of America the enormous extent of our war effort, and the very great sacrifices we have already made and are making.
My hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that if we have erred in respect of understatement in the past, it would be equally wrong for us to go to the other extreme and indulge in vainglorious boasting, which would have a very unfortunate effect upon the American people, and quite the reverse effect which we wish to create. It is true that my right hon. Friend referred recently to the undesirability of sending high-pressure publicity merchants to America, and that is, I think, a statement with which we can all agree. It would be undesirable to send people of that category, but that does not mean that we are not to send any kind of person. Whenever we get someone who appears to be very suitable to give the British message to the American people, the House may count upon it that we shall see that that person is sent to do the good work. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we should like to see more done by way of bringing together public representatives of America and of this country. I am sure that that can be a very useful factor in promoting good relationship between the two countries. Certainly there is no lack of any desire, either on the part of the Foreign Office, who are perhaps particularly interested, or on the part of the Ministry of Information to promote that kind of intercourse between the


elected representatives of the two countries.
It is true that proposals have been under consideration for some time for a visit to this country of a representative delegation from the American Congress. We, for our part, should welcome such a visit, because certainly this country has nothing to hide. We clearly want our American friends to realise the extent of the effort that we are making, and visits of this kind will naturally help in that direction. I should not wish to be pressed at this moment as to the best way in which such a visit can be arranged. Whether it should be arranged through the medium of the Inter-Parliamentary Union or in some other way is a matter for consideration. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would like to give further consideration to that point. The Under-Secretary is at present on a visit to America, and he will, no doubt, collect information on this and on many other points, and, when he

comes back, he will be able to give my right hon. Friend useful guidance as to the best sort of arrangement to be made. In those circumstances I think the matter had better be left where it is. There is no lack of good will on the part of the Government towards the desire to promote better relations with America. In fact we are eager to do everything possible and, whenever suitable opportunities arise, we will take advantage of them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the House will have heard with appreciation the remarks the hon. Gentleman has just made. I am certain that, under whatever auspices the visit is made, the delegation from the great representative Assembly of the United States will be greeted with the warmest welcome here and with the sole desire to do everything in our power to show them what we have to show and to learn from them what they have to teach us.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn" put, and agreed to.